Encyclopedia of Ethical Failure

Department of Defense

Office of General Counsel

Standards of Conduct Office

Updated October 2014

2

Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Disclaimer ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Abuse of Position ............................................................................................................................ 4

Bribery (18 U.S.C. § 201-Type Violations) .................................................................................. 11

Compensation for Representational Services from Non-Federal Sources

(18 U.S.C. § 203-Type Violations) ........................................................................................ 32

Conflicts of Interest (18 U.S.C. § 208-Type Violations) ............................................................... 39

Credit Card Abuse ......................................................................................................................... 58

Endorsements……………………………………………………………………………………. 65

Financial Disclosure Violations .................................................................................................... 66

Fraud (Violations Not Covered Elsewhere) .................................................................................. 72

Gambling and Other Contest Violations ....................................................................................... 83

Gift Violations ............................................................................................................................... 84

Involvement in Claims Against the Government or in Matters Affecting the Government

(18 U.S.C. § 205-Type Violations) ......................................................................................... 89

Misuse of Government Resources and Personnel ......................................................................... 92

Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) Issues ......................................................................... 119

Political Activity Violations ........................................................................................................ 121

Post-Employment Violations (18 U.S.C. § 207-Type Violations) .............................................. 132

Salary for Government Work from Non-Government Source

(18 U.S.C. § 209-Type Violations) ...................................................... ……………………..146

Time and Attendance Violations ................................................................................................. 154

Travel Violations ......................................................................................................................... 161

3

Introduction

The Standards of Conduct Office of the Department of Defense General

Counsel’s Office has assembled the following selection of cases of ethical failure for use

as a training tool. Our goal is to provide DoD personnel with real examples of Federal

employees who have intentionally or unwittingly violated the standards of conduct.

Some cases are humorous, some sad, and all are real. Some will anger you as a Federal

employee and some will anger you as an American taxpayer.

Please pay particular attention to the multiple jail and probation sentences, fines,

employment terminations and other sanctions that were taken as a result of these ethical

failures. Violations of many ethical standards involve criminal statutes. Protect yourself

and your employees by learning what you need to know and accessing your Agency

ethics counselor if you become unsure of the proper course of conduct. Be sure to access

them before you take action regarding the issue in question. Many of the cases displayed

in this collection could have been avoided completely if the offender had taken this

simple precaution.

The cases have been arranged according to offense for ease of access. Feel free to

reproduce and use them as you like in your ethics training program. For example - you

may be conducting a training session regarding political activities. Feel free to copy and

paste a case or two into your slideshow or handout – or use them as examples or

discussion problems. If you have a case you would like to make available for inclusion

in a future update of this collection, please email it to OSD.SOCO@MAIL.MIL or you

may fax it to (703) 695-4970.

Disclaimer

The Encyclopedia of Ethical Failure is intended to sensitize Federal employees to

the reach and impact of Federal ethics statutes and regulations. It is best used to

supplement personal verification of those statutes and regulations. It should not be

interpreted as a binding or authoritative presentation of the law.

Note of Special Thanks

We thank the DoD OIG for their case contributions to the Encyclopedia.

4

Abuse of Position

If I Help You Land This Multimillion Dollar Contract, Will You Give

Me a Job? A former government human resource director was sentenced to two years of

probation for violating conflicts of interest laws, 18 U.S.C. § 208, and lying on his

financial disclosure report. A whistleblower spilled the beans on a polling and market

research firm’s price inflation for government contracts and simultaneously its offer of a

six-figure salary to the government official who was working to expand the firm’s

multimillion dollar contract with his agency. The former official was criminally

sentenced to two-years of probation for failing to notify ethics officials about his

employment arrangement with the firm on his financial disclosure report. In a related

civil case, the former employee was barred from future government contracting work and

forced to pay a $40,000 fine. Last but not least, the firm pulled his employment offer

after the news broke.

General Discovers that Military Aides Are Not Supposed to Feed Cats Military officials discovered that a General was misusing Government personnel,

improperly accepting gifts of services from subordinates, and misusing his position.

What did he do? The General used his enlisted aides to help host unofficial functions at

his headquarters, provide driving lessons to a family member, and to feed a friend’s cat.

Although the aides were initially paid with $30-$40 Starbucks gift cards for their

services, the General, taking full responsibility for his actions even though he retired,

rectified the misuse and underpayment for services by retroactively paying the aides

almost $2,000.

Misadventures in Hiring Family Two retired colonels working for a National Guard educational program were

found to have not been impartial in their duties when engaging in family hires. Colonel 1

nicely asked Colonel 2 to authorize the hiring of Colonel 1’s son as a contractor which

Colonel 2 did. Not to be outdone, Colonel 2 oversaw the hiring of his nephew and

5

brother-in-law as contractors. Colonel 2 even attempted to get his own son hired as a

contractor, but Colonel 2’s supervisor correctly thought it would be inappropriate. Each

colonel was issued a letter of caution to avoid an appearance of a conflict and they were

required to take an annual ethics training course.

Chief Authority A military service Chief Master Sergeant abused her authority and improperly

used a government vehicle when she employed a government vehicle and three non-

commissioned officers under her supervision to move personal property in a government

rental vehicle. The soldiers helped her for 3 hours. The Chief Master Sergeant was given

a verbal warning and advised of the improper use of government vehicles and the abuse

of authority.

Abuse of Position and Bribery A military service Captain used his official position as a reservist to obtain

contracts for private sector companies with which he had an affiliation. In addition, the

Captain accepted a “finder’s fee” (i.e., kickbacks) from one company for his efforts in

helping the company obtain government contract work. For his significant ethical failure,

the Captain was “allowed” to retire at the grade of Commander, though he had been

selected to be an Admiral. In addition, the Captain was debarred for one year, while two

of the affiliated companies entered into administrative agreements (for 3 years) with the

military service.

Coercion by Supervisor The director of a naval health clinic received a $3,000 loan from a subordinate

after requesting that the subordinate loan him $6,000. The $3,000 apparently wasn’t

enough, however, and the director later asked for $10,000. This time the subordinate

declined. After the director only repaid a fraction of the $3,000, the subordinate

approached the chain of command. In addition to being directed by his commanding

officer to repay the rest of the loan, the director was provided with a written letter of

counseling regarding his unprofessional and unethical conduct.

6

DoD GS-12 Removed for Misuse of Authority A GS-12 Recreation Program Manager who supervised approximately 75 civilian

and military subordinates was removed from his position for several ethical violations,

including the failure to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The employee moved into

visitors’ quarters on a military installation where he stayed for six months without paying

full price for his room by pressuring his subordinate to acquiesce to his payment

arrangements. He also authorized an employee to make a $400 agency expenditure to

purchase workout clothing for one MWR fitness instructor. The employee had no reason

to believe he had the authority to authorize this expenditure and should have made

inquiry before giving authorization. The administrative law judge stated that this act

“at the very least gives the appearance of impropriety and should have raised a red flag.”

Business Costs Employee A former administrator for the Department of Health and Human Services took

several trips on the government’s dime that didn’t look good. The advisor informed the

HHS Secretary that he intended to seek employment in the private sector. The Secretary

asked him to stay with the Department until Congress passed the new Medicare

prescription drug benefits plan. The advisor agreed, but he continued to pursue his job

search while serving as a government employee. While there is nothing wrong with

government employees looking for a new job, the hang-up for this employee came when

he decided to take several trips ostensibly related to his work for the HHS. While he was

on these trips, he allegedly conducted “perfunctory meetings” for the HHS, and then he

went off to do what he had really come to do—to have interviews with potential

employers. Regardless of whether or not these trips were set up for the purpose of

conducting bono fide government business, the advisor’s meetings with potential

employers during those trips gave the appearance that he was using his position for

personal gain The employee has agreed to reimburse the government’s costs for the trips,

which totaled approximately $10,000 in value.

7

Federal Agent Demoted for I.D.ing Herself as a Federal Agent to a

Police Officer

A Supervisory Special Agent for the Department of the Treasury (GS-14) was a

passenger in a car that was pulled over by a local police officer. When the officer

approached the vehicle, the employee presented the officer with her credentials

identifying herself as a Federal Agent. The police officer had not asked to see the

employee’s identification at all. Because law enforcement officials may be tempted to

treat other law enforcement officials more favorably, the Department determined the

employee presented her government credentials to the police officer in hopes of receiving

more favorable treatment. The federal employee did not explicitly ask the police officer

for any favors, but the circumstances led her agency to the conclusion that she had

attempted to use her official position for personal gain, which is prohibited by federal

ethics rules. As a result, the employee’s agency determined that she was untrustworthy

as a supervisor and she was demoted.

Abuse of His Positions A former ATF chief, Carl Truscott, was investigated by the Department of

Treasury Inspector General and found to have committed numerous ethics violations.

Among them, Truscott was found to have misused his position and to have wasted

government resources by giving his nephew unlimited access to ATF employees and

resources for a school project. The ATF’s Office of Public Affairs staff was told by

Truscott to comply with all of his nephew’s requests. The OPA staff ended up “spoon

feeding” Truscott’s nephew. OPA staff spent numerous hours conducting research on

publicly available information, mailing the nephew hard copies, providing the nephew

with stock film footage, and conducting tours and interviews for the nephew. Truscott

also asked employees at the Philadelphia field office to escort his nephew on tours, and to

perform demonstrations of canine drug detection for him. When Truscott’s nephew

requested to visit the ATF headquarters, Truscott allowed him to use ATF equipment,

including the ATF’s film studio, cameras, and teleprompters to film interviews.

Additionally, Truscott gave his nephew three personal interviews, including once at the

construction site of the new ATF building where Truscott, his assistant, and an OPA staff

member had to travel to give the interview. Truscott also used his speechwriter to draft

8

talking points for him to use in the interviews. And, as if that were not enough, after the

nephew completed the video and received an “A” grade for it, Truscott continued to

allow him to make requests to the ATF for suggestions on improving the video. One

employee reported spending four or five days complying with the nephew’s requests.

The IG was unable to tally the total number of employees and hours that were

devoted to Truscott’s nephew, but estimated that at least 20 ATF employees were

involved. The IG determined that Truscott violated government regulations prohibiting

federal employees from using their office for private gain, wasting government resources,

and influencing subordinates to waste government resources. (Office of the Inspector

General, Report of Investigation Concerning Alleged Mismanagement and Misconduct

by Carl J. Truscott, Former Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and

Explosives.

SES Official’s Involvement with Subordinate Leads to Retirement The Inspector General found that an SES official engaged in an intimate

relationship with a subordinate, provided her preferential treatment when selecting her for

a new position, and misused Government resources and official time. The official retired

before the IG completed his report. The IG report indicated that the official’s

relationship with a subordinate adversely affected the workplace, violated the

requirements for members of the Senior Executive Service, and constituted conduct that

was prejudicial to the Government. Witnesses noted that the official failed to hold his

paramour accountable for her professional responsibilities, and when confronted by other

employees, became verbally abusing, vengeful, and angry. The official also served as the

selecting official, who selected his subordinate for promotion, while engaged in an

intimate relationship with her, thereby violating the Merit system principles and engaging

in a prohibited personal practice.

Affair with Assistant Leads to Employee Removal A Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense was terminated when

investigators discovered that he had engaged in a romantic relationship with a DoD

contractor who had served as his executive assistant. The executive assistant claimed that

the end of their affair and the official’s subsequent persistence had led her to leave her

9

position. When questioned by investigators regarding the affair, the Deputy Assistant

initially lied as to the nature of the relationship.

Although charges of sexual harassment could not be substantiated, the Inspector

General found the Deputy Assistant’s behavior to be incompatible with the standards of

conduct established for DoD employees and members of the Senior Executive Service.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense promptly initiated actions to terminate the Deputy

Assistant.

DEA Agent - Misuse of Position A DEA agent whose responsibilities included fleet management and authorization

of repairs of Government vehicles had attempted to obtain free repair services for his

personal vehicles from two vendors. The agent also insinuated to the vendors that the

cost of repairing his personal vehicles could be recouped as part of the charges for repairs

to Government vehicles. After these allegations were substantiated, the agent was

dismissed from DEA.

Improper Use of Position The Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)

investigated allegations that a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney prepared another

person's application for a visa with a cover memorandum on DOJ stationery. The DOJ

attorney also included one of his DOJ business cards in the submission. The foreign

individual was seeking a visa in order to enter the country to perform certain functions

for a non-profit organization. The DOJ attorney told OPR that he did not intend to gain

preferential treatment for the visa applicant by identifying himself as a DOJ attorney, but

believed his actions were consistent with what DOJ employees are permitted to do on

behalf of non-profit organizations.

OPR concluded that the actions of the DOJ attorney were improper, but not

intentionally so. Section 2635.703 of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of

the Executive Branch prohibits employees from using their position or title for purposes

of endorsement.

10

“You obviously don't know who I am.” The son of a bureau director was denied a rental car because he was too young.

Outraged, his father wrote a scathing letter (on Agency letterhead) to the president of the

rental car company, and sent it off in a U.S. postage-paid envelope. The president of the

company was not amused and returned his scathing response to the head of the Agency.

As a result of his action, the Bureau Director was treated to a four-hour ethics session and

a fine for personal use of official postage.

"But, Judge, I didn't get anything!" An offshore safety inspector found much of the Government’s equipment to be in

need of repairs to meet safety standards. He then referred the business to his brother-in-

law's repair shop. The rig operators smelled a rat and called the FBI. They discovered

that, in return for each referral, the brother-in-law was treating the inspector to an evening

with a lady of dubious morals.

The case was brought to trial. In his defense, the inspector claimed that he had

not received a "thing of value" in return for the referral. The judge didn't buy it - and

neither did his wife.

Use of Contractor Time Allegations were made against a Department of Defense (DoD) official regarding

his use of contractor employees. The official directed two US Government contractors to

entertain an acquaintance he met at a conference in Europe on his behalf. They were

directed to take the person out to lunch as well as out on the town the following evening.

The contractors rightly believed that the request was improper and as a result told the

DoD official that they “had other plans.” The DoD official told them to “cancel them.”

The contractors eventually took the acquaintance out that evening for several hours.

After an investigation, it was determined that the DoD official had acted in

violation of 5 CFR 2635.704 by utilizing contractors’ time improperly. His supervisor

counseled him and the proper reimbursements were made.

11

Veterans Affairs Supervisors Push for Friends to be Hired A review found in two instances that Department of Veterans Affairs medical

center supervisors recommended the hiring of close personal friends without divulging

the relationship to human resources staff members. The review team recommended that

disciplinary action be taken.

Interior Official Altered Reports and Leaked Confidential Information The Interior Department’s Inspector General found that a senior official had

repeatedly altered scientific field reports to lessen the protections for imperiled species

and ease the impact on landowners. The investigation also revealed the official, who

works in Fish and Wildlife Services, misused her position by disclosing confidential

information to private groups seeking to affect policy decisions. The Inspector General

referred the case to the Department Head for “potential administrative action.”

(The Seattle Times, March 30, 2007)

Bribery (18 U.S.C. § 201-Type Violations)

My Oath of Office for Your Cold Hard Cash A U.S. Foreign Service officer, who worked in the U.S. Consulate in Ho Chi

Minh City, Vietnam, was responsible for issuing visas after reviewing applications and

conducting interviews. He conspired with U.S. and Vietnamese citizens to recruit

customers who would pay $15,000 to $70,000 in exchange for non-immigrant visas from

Vietnam to the U.S. He accepted over $3 million in bribes and allowed nearly 500

foreign nationals to enter the U.S. He pleaded guilty to bribery and agreed to pay at least

$6 million in a money judgment and faces up to 24 years in prison.

The Godfather A former Department of Defense employee used to refer to himself as “The

Godfather” because of his ability to influence the awarding of construction contracts.

However, like all great crime bosses, this employee was arrested for extorting a $10,000

bribe. The Godfather accepted a $10,000 installment of a $40,000 bribe from an

12

undercover agent in an attempt to secure a flooring contract. The Godfather was taken

into custody.

Lucrative Contracting A former Army officer had found a lucrative gig: accepting cash payments for

facilitating contracting between Iraqis and the U.S. government during a deployment to

Baghdad. This particular officer accepted $37,500 in cash payment for these

“facilitations.” The officer was sentenced to prison, three years of supervised release,

and was required to pay $37,500 restitution to the U.S. Government.

Bribe for a Bulldozer A retired military employee plead guilty to taking bribes in exchange for turning a blind

eye while others stole heavy equipment from the base for resale. The man admitted to allowing

items such as cranes, bulldozers, and front-end loaders to be taken from the base. As part of his

plea agreement, the employee agreed to forfeit the bribe proceeds, as well as to pay full restitution

to the Department of Defense.

Fraud, Conspiracy, and Bribery … Oh My! Criminal charges put a computer contractor out of business and landed

government employees in jail. Two civilian employees at a Military Depot, along with

the contractor’s government sales manager, were convicted on various conspiracy and

bribery charges for defrauding the U.S. Government under multiple contracts in return for

cash and merchandise. The employees were part of a scheme in which they used

government funds to purchase laptops and recycled computer components from the

contractor’s sales manager at inflated prices, and split the overcharged amounts among

themselves. One employee received prison time, three years probation, and was ordered

to pay $30,000 in restitution. The other employee was sentenced to 22 months in jail,

three years of probation, and ordered to pay $18,000. The sales manager received a

similar sentence. The computer contractor was indicted on nine felony counts and

subjected to asset forfeiture of approximately $7.8 million. The charges were later

withdrawn after the company filed for bankruptcy. The investigation also resulted

13

in five other individuals charged with prison time and ordered to pay a combined

$127,000 in restitution.

One Thing Leads to Another A misuse of government resources investigation hit unexpected pay dirt when it

uncovered a contractor procurement and bribery scheme. Investigators responding to a

hotline tip substantiated a misuse of funds claim when they found a civilian utilities

manager at a Military command rented a 350-ton crane to move electrical generators

seven days before it was needed; costing the government $35,000. The investigation also

uncovered a complicated contract bid rigging, bribery and kickback operation involving

the utilities manager and a Service contractor. The manager manipulated and sole-

sourced work to the contractor; reportedly to drive business to the contractor in order to

transition to a job with them after his government job. The manager used government

funds to purchase expensive tools, plasma TVs, and laptop computers that turned up

missing. He also allowed the contractor to use government personnel, tools, and

equipment to do the contractor’s work. He submitted false invoices on behalf of the

contractor, resulting in a $1.3 million loss to the government. As a result of a plea deal

for cooperation in additional procurement investigations, the manager was sentenced to

15 months in prison and debarred from government contracting for four years. This

investigation touched off five separate criminal investigations against other contractors in

that Military Service regarding allegations of bid rigging.

Bribery and Fraud Lands Program Manager in Jail A Program Manager (PM) that was responsible for administering computer

contracts received kickbacks and ran his own business defrauding the Government. The

PM negotiated a deal with a contractor that raised the price of computer storage

equipment by $500 a unit. The increase was for “additional services” that were

supposedly needed to resolve a defect in the equipment. An investigation determined that

these services were unnecessary, and that the $500 was paid to a shell company owned by

the PM’s wife.

The $500 per unit was just the start. He also used a business that he controlled to

purchase generic equipment and resell it to the Government as a name brand product far

14

above market rate. These endeavors proved to be quite lucrative, and the PM profited

about $3.2 million on the schemes. The profit was short-lived, however, as the PM was

indicted for bribery and fraud. He was sentenced to five years in prison, required to

repay the $3.2 million and charged a $2,400 fine.

Contracting Official in Afghanistan Pleads Guilty to Bribery A Government employee at Bagram Airfield, pled guilty to accepting bribes in

exchange for awarding Government contracts. The employee was responsible for

evaluating trucking contractors and assigning each contractor days of work each month

based on their performance. The employee was approached by a contractor and

ultimately accepted a wireless telephone and $20,000 a month in exchange for assigning

an extra day of work each month to that contractor. He also made a similar deal with

another contractor for $15,000 a month. In all, the employee received about $87,000. He

was sentenced to forty months in prison and three years of supervised release.

Major Wrongdoing A retired Army Major, Christopher H. Murray, pled guilty to charges of bribery

and making a false statement arising from his activities at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait.

In 2005 and 2006, while serving as a contracting specialist at Camp Arijan,

Murray received approximately $225,000 in bribes from DOD contractors. In return, he

recommended the award of contracts for various goods and services. Murray also

admitted that he received an additional $20,000 in bribes from a DOD contractor in

exchange for the award of a construction contract. Murray’s misconduct continued as he

made false statements to federal agents investigating his conduct. Murray’s sentencing is

pending, but the maximum penalty for each of four bribery counts is 15 years in prison

and a $250,000 fine. The maximum penalty for making a false statement is five years in

prison and a $250,000 fine.

In another bribery case at Camp Arifjan, another Army Major, James Momon, Jr.,

accepted cash bribes from five DOD contracting firms that supplied bottled water and

other goods and services to bases in Kuwait. Momon, a contracting officer at the camp,

awarded contracts and Blanket Purchase Agreement calls to those contractors, receiving

15

$5.8 million as payment for his actions. Momon pled guilty to bribery and conspiracy to

commit bribery. His sentencing is pending, but, like Murray, Momon faces up to 15

years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each bribery count, as well as five years in prison

for the conspiracy count. Momon has also agreed to pay $5.8 million in restitution.

Inhibiting Victory A Major in the U.S. Army Reserve pled guilty to conspiracy and bribery charges

related to DOD contracts at Camp Victory, Iraq. According to the charging document,

Theresa Jeanne Baker received money and other items, including a Harley Davidson

motorcycle, from a defense contractor, Raman Corporation, and a former employee of

another defense contractor, Elie Samir Chidiac. In return, Baker conveyed sensitive

information and fraudulently awarded contracts to the contractor. Baker also canceled

contracts that were awarded to third party contractors and fraudulently re-awarded them

to Chidiac. Baker’s sentencing is pending, but the maximum penalty for each of Baker’s

two bribery counts is 15 years in prison and the greater of a $250,000 fine and three times

the monetary equivalent of the thing of value received. Baker was also charged with two

counts of conspiracy. Each count comes with a maximum penalty of five years in prison

and a $250,000 fine.

Courting Trouble A former official of the U.S. Tax Court, Fred Fernando Timbol Jr., was sentenced

to 18 months in prison and three years of supervised release in connection with a bribery

conspiracy.

Timbol was a facilities services officer in the Facilities Management Section of

the U.S. Tax Court. Timbol was responsible for assisting in the award of contracts to

contractors who provided maintenance, construction, and other related service to the

Court. Timbol admitted to soliciting and accepting over $12,000 from a government

contractor in exchange for rigging the award of at least six inflated contracts. As part

of a plea agreement and by order of the court, Timbol also agreed to pay restitution

of $24,143.

16

Moore Misconduct First Lieutenant Robert Moore (Ret.) agreed to pay $120,000 in restitution for

accepting money from contractors in exchange for the award of DOD contracts.

In addition to pleading guilty to bribery for the award of contracts at Bagram

Airfield, Afghanistan, Moore pled guilty to conspiracy, admitting to falsifying the

number of bunkers and barriers delivered at Bagram, which resulted in DOD paying for

bunkers and barriers that were never received. Moore also admitted falsifying damage

reports for leased vehicles, causing DOD to pay for repairs not performed.

Two other officials, Christopher P. West, an Army Major, and Patrick W. Boyd,

an Air Force Master Sergeant, likewise pled guilty to bribery and conspiracy for related

conduct. The two agreed to pay $500,000 and $130,000, respectively, in restitution to

DOD.

Department Employee Works to the Public Detriment A civilian Engineering Technician assigned to the Public Works Department at

Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, TX recommended Contract Construction and Fence

Company for a $153,000 contract. But behind the scenes, the company had first agreed

to pay the Government employee $5,000 in exchange for the recommendation, per the

employee’s request. The technician admitted to accepting the bribe in return for his

official action that resulted in the contract award. The Navy debarred the civilian

employee for three years, and he left Federal service.

VA Employee Earns a 46-Month Stay in the Slammer for Corruption A Department of Veterans Affairs employee was caught demanding and receiving

kickbacks from a contractor doing business with her agency. The VA employee and the

contractor agreed that the employee would recommend the contractor’s services to her

agency, and in return the contractor would give the employee kickbacks from the inflated

prices it charged the government. In all, the employee received $115,000 in kickbacks,

although the scheme ended up costing the government much more—between $400,000

and $1 million. On a side note, the VA employee was also indicted for conducting post-

government employment negotiations with a company she was doing business with in her

government capacity.

17

Accepting Gifts from Vendor Results in $1,000 Fine A U.S. Postal Service (USPS) employee who accepted free tee time golf games

from a vendor had to explain his actions in Federal court after a tipster informed

investigators. Authorities learned that the employee, who was the manager of Delivery

Vehicle Operations, had played golf with a vendor who was involved in a $100 million

procurement with USPS. On that occasion, the employee had accepted payment for his

golf fees and his dinner. Investigators discovered that over the course of the previous

year, the employee had also accepted approximately $2,000 in non-cash items (including

meals and golf fees) from the vendor.

The employee pled guilty to bribery, and was sentenced to one year unsupervised

probation and a $1,000 fine. For this employee, golf turned into a very expensive sport.

Exchanging Contract for Computer Earns Prison Time The Facts: The director of Respiratory Care at a Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital

in Shreveport, Louisiana, agreed to push through a VA contract for a vendor, if the

vendor supplied her with a laptop computer. The VA Police and Security Service, as

they are wont to do, investigated and discovered this quid pro quo. The director was

caught and pleaded guilty to soliciting and receiving illegal gifts. She was sentenced to 5

months in prison, to be followed by 7 months of home confinement, and ordered to pay

restitution of $904. (Source: Federal Ethics Report, Feb. 2001.)

The Law: 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B) (2003) forbids any public official from

accepting anything of value in exchange for an official act to be performed, or because of

any official act already performed. Violations of this law can merit fines, imprisonment

for up to 2 years, or both.

Asking for a Bribe — Have You Lost Your Mind? The Facts: An employee at the Defense MegaCenter at Kelly Air Force Base,

Texas, was working as a member of a source evaluation committee reviewing contract

proposals for a $5 million contract when he struck on this ingenious idea: Ask one of the

potential contractors for a bribe in exchange for his approval of the contractor’s proposal!

The contractor apparently didn’t think that this was such a good idea, however. It

contacted the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, which investigated the case along

18

with the Air Force. The investigation included using an undercover agent, parading as

the contractor’s representative, paying the employee the bribe. Having been caught with

his hand in the cookie jar, the employee pleaded guilty to accepting a bribe and was

sentenced to one year of probation and ordered to participate in a mental health

program—perhaps an appropriate remedy for what proved to be a lame-brained scheme.

(Source: Federal Ethics Report, Feb. 2001.)

The Law: 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2)(A) (2003) bars public officials and any persons

selected to be public officials from seeking anything of value in return for “being

influenced . . . in the performance of any official act.” The penalty for violating this law

can include fines, imprisonment for up to 15 years, or both, along with possible

disqualification from holding “any office of honor, trust, or profit” with the United States

Government.

Don’t Be Too Gracious a Gift-Getter ! The Facts: An employee of the Maritime Administration (MARAD), a division

of the Department of Transportation, oversaw contracts for ship repairs. He also saw a

contractor providing him with nice gifts to reward his work—including a large-screen TV

and a VCR. What could be wrong with that? Plenty, according to the U.S. Attorney,

who delivered to this gracious gift-getter a four-month prison sentence, to be followed by

one year of probation, and an order for restitution in the amount of $7,460. The other

gifts the employee could have refused; these he was compelled to take. (Source: Federal

Ethics Report, Feb. 2001.)

The Law: 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B) (2003) forbids any public official from

accepting anything of value in exchange for an official act, or given for an official act

already taken. A violation of this law can result in fines, imprisonment for up to 2 years,

or both.

Not So Much of a Bright Bulb ! The Facts: A former supervisor in the Bureau of Indian Affairs used a

Government-issue credit card to purchase excessive quantities of overpriced light bulbs

from a North Dakota company. In exchange for his act as a poor shopper, he accepted

19

$21,000 in bribes. For his savvy purchasing, he was sentenced to one year and nine

months in prison and ordered to pay $72,000 in restitution.

The Law: 18 U.S.C. § 201(b) (2003) forbids Federal employees from (among

other things) seeking or receiving anything of value in return for being influenced in the

performance of an official act or to commit or to assist the commission of any fraud

against the United States. It mandates fines, imprisonment for up to 15 years, or both,

along with disqualification from holding “any office of honor, trust, or profit under the

United States.”

FAA Employee Sentenced for Bribery A former employee of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was convicted

of bribery. In carrying out his primary responsibility of reviewing and processing

applications for FAA-issued pilot certificates, the employee accepted bribes of $2,000

and an all-expense paid trip to Korea in exchange for preferential treatment of

applications for Korean pilots from the flight school, Wings Over America.

The employee was sentenced to pay a $2,000 fine and serve four months in

prison, followed by three years probation for violating 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(2). Bribery

occurs when a public official seeks or accepts anything of value in return for being

influenced in the performance of an official act.

Social Security Administration Employee's Bribery Try Ends in Prison A Social Security Administration employee and her husband were convicted for

soliciting bribes from individuals seeking Social Security benefits for themselves or

family members. The couple approached citizens who were having difficulty qualifying

for Supplemental Social Security benefits. They would offer to arrange to have benefits

reinstated or to complete paperwork for the individual. Afterwards, they demanded

payment for their services.

At their 1997 trial in Louisiana, a judge ordered the employee to 46 months

imprisonment followed by three years probation. The employee's husband received 30

months imprisonment followed by three years probation. They each paid back

$23,809.33.

20

The offense of bribery occurs when a public official seeks or accepts anything of

value in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act.

Navy Employee Sentenced for Gratuity Offense A Navy electrical foreman was sentenced for accepting $9,300 in illegal gratuities

from a Government contractor. The foreman was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 201

and was sentenced to 36 months probation and a $10,000 fine. The electrical foreman

assisted a Government contractor in obtaining a contract with the Naval Air Warfare

Center (NAWC). The foreman had authority over certain Navy contracts relating to

NAWC base maintenance.

Congressional Aide Sentenced for Corrupt Activities A former staff assistant to a U.S. Congressman was convicted of two counts of

accepting gratuities (18 U.S.C. 201) and one count of devising and carrying out a scheme

to defraud the Government (18 U.S.C. 1341). The aide was sentenced to 18 months

imprisonment on each count followed by two years probation. The staff assistant

accepted $3,700 for assisting individuals in obtaining permanent residency status by

sending endorsements on the Congressman's letterhead to the Immigration and

Naturalization Service (INS). The aide was also involved in a scheme to defraud aliens

seeking permanent residency. The aide told the aliens that if they were members in the

Seventh Day Adventist Church, they would be eligible for permanent resident status even

though the INS Special Religious Immigrant Work Program covers only church workers

and their immediate families who are employed by a religious organization. The aliens

were informed that for a fee, the aide would assist them in applying with the INS. The

aide received approximately $400,000 from 1,000 aliens.

HUD Official and Realtor Imprisoned for Bribery Scheme A former official at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD) was sentenced for his role in a bribery scheme involving HUD properties. The

former official was paid bribes by a realtor who in exchange was sold HUD properties at

lower than their appraised values. The bribes totaled over $80,000, including a BMW

automobile. In return the HUD official sold the realtor 20 HUD properties at one-third of

21

their appraised value. The realtor then resold the properties at their full market value. In

addition to other charges, both the HUD official and the realtor plead guilty to one count

of 18 U.S.C. 201 each.

The HUD official was sentenced to a 24-month prison term followed by 3 years

probation and was ordered to pay $1.4 million in restitution. The realtor was sentenced

to a 27-month prison term followed by 3 years probation and was also ordered to pay

$1.4 million in restitution.

United States Customs Service Special Agent Takes Informant Payoff

Funds Beginning in June 1987, the agent worked with an informant who provided

assistance to the Customs Service in criminal investigations. One of the agent’s duties

was to monitor and assess the work of the informant. During a period of several years,

the informant received a number of payments from the Customs Service as compensation

for his services as informant. On one or more occasions, the informant expressed

gratitude for the agent’s assistance by observing that both he and the agent had engaged

in hard work for which the informant would receive substantial compensation, but for

which the agent only would receive his salary. The informant offered to share with the

agent a portion of his earnings from the Customs Service. In April 1992, the agent

nominated the informant for a large payment, which represented a portion of the value of

certain assets forfeited as a result of information provided by the informant. The agent

then initiated a telephone conversation with the informant in which he asked the

informant for money. During August 1992, the informant went to San Francisco to

receive the payment. The agent personally gave the informant a United States Treasury

check in the amount of $110,875. While riding in a Government-owned vehicle, the

informant attempted to hand the agent an envelope with $4,000 in cash. The agent

responded that the informant should drop the envelope in the car because he could not

accept the cash directly. The informant left the money in the car and the agent

recovered it.

The agent pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to a charge of a criminal

violation of 18 U.S.C. 209, illegal supplementation of salary. Under the plea agreement,

the agent agreed to the imposition of a fine of $4,000 by the Court, to not seek

22

employment with any Federal, state, or local law enforcement Agency, and to pay a

special assessment of $25. In exchange for these agreements, the United States agreed to

move to dismiss the Indictment charging the agent with a violation of 18 U.S.C.

201(c)(1)(B) and not to prosecute him for any other criminal offense relating to his

receipt of $4,000 from the informant.

Gratuity Accepted In Exchange for Immigration Services A pastor submitted an application for permanent residence to the United States

Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The Southeastern

Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists (Southeastern Conference) wanted the pastor to

minister to two of its congregations in Miami. On August 17, 1990, a Congressman sent

a letter to INS on behalf of the pastor. On May 31, 1991, a second letter from the

Congressman, this time signed by the pastor as well, was sent to INS. Both letters were

written on Congressional stationery. On August 21, 1991, the pastor’s application for

permanent residence was approved. On July 8, 1993, the Congressional staffer who

organized the scheme received a $500 gratuity from the Southeastern Conference for her

efforts on behalf of the pastor. The staffer used the same scheme to assist another pastor

in obtaining permanent residence so that he could serve as minister for two of the

Southeastern Conference's congregations. The Congressman wrote to INS on July 26,

1993, on behalf of the second pastor and the Southeastern Conference. The staffer

assisted the second pastor in his dealings with INS. On August 3, 1993, INS approved

the pastor’s petition for residence and, on February 3, 1994, the staffer received a $500

gratuity from the Southeastern Conference for her efforts on behalf of the pastor. On

April 26, 1994, another foreign national paid the staffer $2,700 for assisting her in

applying for permanent residence. The staffer submitted a petition to INS on the person’s

behalf and signed the application as the preparer. Although the application contained a

signature, which purported to be that of the staffer, she claimed that it was not her

signature and that she did not see the application prior to its submission. The staffer knew

that the foreign national was not eligible to become a permanent resident of the U.S. but

fraudulently misrepresented to her that she was eligible in order to induce her to utilize

the staffer’s services.

23

The staffer was charged with two counts of accepting gratuities for official acts

performed, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 201(c)(1)(B) and knowingly making a material false

writing and presenting it to INS, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001. She was also charged

with accepting compensation for services provided in relation to matters in which the

United States has a direct and substantial interest, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 203(a)(1), and

mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341. The staffer pled guilty to the five-count

indictment on September 30, 1996, and was sentenced to 18 months of incarceration on

April 18, 1997.

Multiple Charges Brought Against Air Force Officer and Accomplice

for Software Scheme An Air Force officer was disgruntled after receiving notification that he would not

be promoted and was soon to be discharged without a retirement annuity. He conspired

with a base warehouse supervisor (while also seeking employment with him) to

unlawfully transfer superseded software from the MacDill AFB warehouse he supervised

to a private company for subsequent sale. He arranged with the supervisor to remove

software called Oracle Tools and Database (Oracle). The Air Force officer obtained

possession of over 96 boxes of Oracle software by making false statements in writing in

an effort to gain authorization from his superiors to have the software destroyed in place.

Destruction of superseded software was the responsibility of the Government according

to its agreements with software contractors. The Air Force officer worked under the

pretense that the Oracle software was being turned over to a company for destruction.

Instead, the officer provided the Oracle software to a moving company that transported

the boxes from MacDill to a commercial storage facility rented by the warehouse

supervisor. Once in possession of the software, he searched for buyers of the software.

Originally, the U.S. Central Command had paid the Government bulk rate of $79,000 for

the Oracle software in 1991. On the gray market, this software was valued between

$35,000 and $100,000.

The officer was convicted of a violation of 18 U.S.C. 208 (working on a project

that affected a company in which he had a financial interest), while his co-defendant, the

warehouse supervisor, was convicted of violations of 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(1), 18 U.S.C. 641

(theft of Government property) and 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy). The officer was

24

sentenced to 1 year probation and 150 hours community service. The warehouse

supervisor was imprisoned for 27 months with supervised release for 3 years.

State Department Regional Security Officer (RSO) at the American

Embassy in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic Drives Automobile

Scheme The RSO’s primary duties included overseeing a small force of U.S. Marines and

a larger force of security guards. While the RSO had no authority to enter into

procurement transactions on the Government's behalf, he did, in two separate

transactions, engineer the purchase of eight vehicles for the security company and some

private citizens. The security company’s contract with the Government required that it

use three vehicles for patrols. These vehicles were purchased in the United States and

were free from substantial import duties when delivered to the Dominican Republic by

virtue of applications by the United States Embassy for "exonerations" from the duties.

Exonerations are given for property to be used by foreign missions. With respect to the

purchase of the first four vehicles, the RSO was given $50,000 by the security company.

The RSO carried at least $39,000 in cash to Miami, which he illegally failed to disclose

to customs officials, and purchased 4 vehicles for $39,000. The RSO kept the remaining

$11,000. Later, when the RSO purchased four vehicles for individuals, he was given

$55,000 in cash. He returned to Miami with at least $35,000 in cash, which again he

failed to report to Customs, and paid $35,000 for four vehicles which were sent to Santo

Domingo and "exonerated" from import duty after the RSO encouraged the exoneration

process and initiated some of the paperwork through an embassy employee. The RSO

retained the unspent $20,000 difference between the purchase amount and the amount he

had been given to purchase the cars. The security company also was required to provide

weapons for its security force. The RSO arranged to purchase the weapons for the

security company by first attempting to have certain firearm companies or retailers ship

the weapons to the Dominican Republic, notwithstanding the fact that the RSO did not

have a license to export the weapons. These companies refused to sell the weapons to the

RSO. Subsequently, he purchased the weapons from a Baltimore gun shop after using

Embassy letterhead and representing that he was authorized to purchase weapons for the

State Department. The gun shop refused to ship the weapons to the RSO. The RSO then

25

went to Baltimore and personally purchased the weapons and sent them in a lead-lined

diplomatic box to the Dominican Republic. The RSO gave most of the weapons to the

security company, but sold some extras that he purchased to citizens of the Dominican

Republic at considerable profit. He also kept for himself the difference of $2000 between

the amount that the security company had given him to purchase the guns and the amount

that the gun purchase had cost him.

The RSO was charged with making false statements to a firearms dealer,

receiving something of value for performance of an official act in violation of 18 U.S.C.

201, participating as a Government employee in a transaction in which he had a financial

interest in violation of 18 U.S.C. 208, stealing ammunition with a value in excess of $100

from the United States, exporting firearms without a license, transporting monetary

instruments into the United States for the purpose of carrying on a violation of the Arms

Control Export Act, and failing to make a true report to the Customs Service when

carrying $10,000 or more into the United States. The jury convicted the RSO on the 201

count and the count of the indictment pertaining to exporting firearms without a license.

Postal Employee Demanded Payoffs to Deliver Benefit Checks Having been tipped off that a letter carrier was demanding money from people on

his route in exchange for delivery of general assistance checks, the Postal Service

established surveillance and taped a conversation in which the letter carrier suggested

that the customer make a "one-time" payment of $15 to ensure delivery of her checks.

The letter carrier accepted the payment, which had been marked in advance of its

transfer. The letter carrier was indicted under 18 U.S.C. 201(c)(1)(B) for accepting

money in exchange for performing an official duty. After plea negotiations, he pled

guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. 209, for accepting compensation for official duties from

a source other than the Government. He was sentenced to three years' probation, with 60

days at a community treatment center.

Employee Convicted for Steering Contracts to Supplier A Government technician and a co-worker went to a manufacturer and offered to

ensure that the manufacturer received Agency contracts in return for a hefty "finders fee."

The manufacturer, unfortunately for these enterprising employees, went to the FBI, which

26

set up a sting operation and arrested the technician. At trial, the technician, ever so

clever, argued that he could not be found guilty of bribery because he was not a

contracting officer, and therefore did not have the authority to award contracts to the

manufacturer. The court rejected this argument after listening to testimony on the role of

technicians as far as providing expert information that contracting officers rely upon, and

upheld the conviction of the technician.

The offense of bribery occurs when a public official seeks or accepts anything of

value in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act. Such acts

include giving advice, making recommendations, and conducting investigations as well

as making decisions.

Please Call Me “Doctor” Inmate One enterprising Federal employee cut a deal with a local university - they gave

him an honorary Ph.D. in public administration in return for his signing a mega-buck

grant for the university. (Obviously, he had great expertise in Public Administration.)

The offense of bribery occurs when a public official seeks or accepts anything of

value (such as an honorary degree) in return for being influenced in the performance of

an official act.

Agriculture Employee Sought for Approving Fraudulent Loans A former employee of the Department of Agriculture is wanted for recruiting his

friends to fraudulently apply for farm loans and then giving him money in exchange for

approving the loans. The former employee helped his non-farmer co-conspirators to fill

out the required forms with the information required for approval. Under this scheme,

the former employee approved loans totaling $1.8 million. He collected $340,000 for

himself.

The former employee has been charged with 98 counts including 56 for bribery.

Seven Agriculture Inspectors Sentenced for Bribery Scheme Seven U.S. Department of Agriculture fruit and vegetable inspectors were

convicted of operating a scheme in which they received cash payments from fruit and

vegetable wholesalers in return for the inspectors assigning lower grades to their produce.

27

The lower grade meant that the wholesaler could pay the grower a lower price for the

produce and then re-sell it at the higher grade.

All pled guilty to one count of bribery each. Bribery occurs when a public official

seeks or accepts anything of value (such as cash) in return for being influenced in the

performance of an official act (such as assigning produce grades).

INS Inspector Accepts Bribes A former Immigration and Naturalization Service inspector was sentenced for

accepting bribes in return for allowing smugglers to import cocaine into the United States

across the border with Mexico. He accepted $75,000 in bribes in return for allowing over

1,000 pounds of cocaine to enter the country.

The former INS inspector was convicted of bribery and was sentenced to 30

months imprisonment followed by three years probation.

Former Federal Highway Administration Official and Wife Engage in

Corrupt Scheme A former FHWA employee and his wife were sentenced for engaging in a bribery

and kickback scheme involving traffic engineering contracts. The former employee

improperly told a contractor that they would probably win a contract. In return, the

contractor granted a sub-contract to the FHWA employee’s wife’s “consulting firm.”

The employee’s wife had no highway engineering education or experience. She received

over $100,000 in Government contracts.

In addition to other charges, the former employee pled guilty to one count of

bribery.

VA Employee Convicted of Accepting Illegal Gratuities A former employee of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs was sentenced for

soliciting and accepting gratuities from a VA vendor. He received three computers,

airline tickets, and hotel accommodations from several VA vendors. He was also

charged with demanding a fourth computer and round trip tickets to Las Vegas from

another vendor. The former employee pled guilty to one count of violation of 18 U.S.C.

201.

28

IRS Official Convicted for Steering Contracts A former IRS official was sentenced in US District Court for accepting bribes in

return for directing IRS computing contracts to certain companies and for failing to report

the bribes on his income tax returns.

He pled guilty to one count of bribery and to one count of filing a false tax return,

and received a 37 month prison term and three years’ probation as a result. Bribery

occurs when a public official seeks or accepts anything of value in return for being

influenced in the performance of an official act.

Special Operations Command Bribery Scandal Nabs Two Retired

Officers Two retired military officers at SOCOM found themselves in federal court after

the revelation of a scheme to funnel defense contracts to companies willing to provide

lucrative kickbacks. The first official was a retired Army lieutenant colonel, and was

employed by SOCOM as a contractor charged with evaluating weapons designed for the

special operations forces. The second official was a retired Army colonel, who was chief

of special programs at SOCOM. Prosecutors allege that the retired colonel formed a

private consulting company in order to represent companies seeking to get part of

SOCOM’s $1.8 billion procurement budget. The consulting company then made illegal

payments to the retired lieutenant colonel in exchange for his favorable reviews of their

clients’ weapons.

The retired lieutenant colonel pled guilty to federal bribery charges. Although he

faced 15 years in prison, his exemplary service and cooperation with investigators earned

him a reduced sentence of three years of supervised probation, six months of home

detention, and $4500 in fines. The retired colonel has maintained his innocence, and

faces up to 15 years in prison and $250,000 in fines.

Iraq Contractor Caught Taking $1 Million in Bribes A former contracting officer for the Iraqi coalition government pled guilty to

accepting over $1 million in bribes in return for steering contracts to a contractor with

companies in Iraq and Romania. The officer was a convicted felon when he was hired by

a U.S. company, which subsequently won a contract with the U.S. to provide controllers

29

to Iraqi regions. The officer was put in charge of over $82 million in funding for an area

south of Baghdad. He quickly began accepting bribes in the form of cash, cars, jewelry,

and sexual favors from women provided by a contractor, in exchange for steering

lucrative contracts in the contractor’s direction. Investigators recovered incriminating

email traffic, including one email from the official to the contractor exclaiming, “I love to

give you money!” Later investigations showed that much of the contracted work was

never completed. Also implicated in the scandal was a retired Army lieutenant colonel,

who also worked as a contracting officer in the region. He was accused of funneling

contracts to the same contractor in exchange for lucrative kickbacks, including a new car;

he also was accused of simply stealing large amounts of money from reconstruction

funds which he then smuggled into the U.S.

The official pled guilty to bribery, conspiracy, and money-laundering, as well as

charges connected with his illegal possession of at least 50 firearms, including machine

guns and grenade launchers. He awaits sentencing, and faces up to 30 years for the

conspiracy charge alone. The contractor pled guilty to conspiracy, bribery, and money-

laundering. He faces up to 40 years in prison, five years of supervised release and a fine

of $750,000. He also must repay the government $3.6 million and forfeit $3.6 million in

assets. The lieutenant colonels case is still pending.

(Source: Washington Post, February 2, 2006; April 16, 2006)

Cargo Contractor Faces 5 Years for Bribery A Navy contractor at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Charleston

Detachment pled guilty to accepting bribes from a freight forwarding company. In

exchange for awarding freight transportation contracts to the company, the contractor

received items valued at more than $10,000, including extravagant dinners, concert and

NASCAR tickets, weekends at a bed-and-breakfast, jewelry, and “spa days” at a

department store. Investigators discovered that coincidentally, the freight company’s

business was virtually nonexistent before the contractor began awarding them contracts

that eventually totaled over $700,000.

30

The contractor faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. She is the

seventh defendant connected to an investigation of payoffs between freight forwarding

companies and government contractors. (Source: UPI, March 20, 2006)

Gift-Giving Contractor Faces 5 Years for Bribery The owner of a cargo company in Virginia Beach faces five years in prison after

giving thousands of dollars in gifts to federal contract officers at the Norfolk Naval

Shipyard in exchange for lucrative military shipping contracts. One federal contract

officer, who had worked for the government for 25 years, received free lunches and

dinners, an open tab at a delicatessen, airline tickets, concert and NASCAR tickets,

cigars, and a $6,000 Jacuzzi. The vice president of the owner’s cargo company was also

indicted for bribes to another Norfolk federal contract officer totaling over $75,000. In

return for these gifts, the owner’s company received over $640,000 in shipping contracts.

The owner faces up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. The two

contract officers both pled guilty; the first has been sentenced to 44 months in prison, and

the other awaits sentencing. (Source: Hampton News, 10/25/05)

Employees Fail to Profit from Red Tape Two workers at the Veterans Affair’s Consolidated Mail Outpatient Pharmacy,

which mails prescriptions to veterans, were charged with taking kickbacks for purchasing

a product from a supplier at more than twice the normal price. The product? Red tape.

The employees were charged with purchasing 100,000 rolls of the tape, which is stamped

with the word “security” and is meant to deter tampering, at $6.95 a roll rather than its

$2.50 retail value. In return, they received kickbacks of more than $1 per roll.

The duo will have plenty of time to appreciate the irony of their situation, as they

face a sentence of 15 years in jail.

Reselling Commissary Goods Lands Two in Court A scheme to resell military commissary batteries on the black market resulted in

charges filed against a veteran and a Department of Defense employee. Investigators

discovered that the veteran was bribing the employee to sell him large quantities of

batteries from a commissary, which the veteran then resold at a profit to a distributor.

31

During a one-year period, the employee sold the veteran $750,000 worth of batteries,

which netted a $20,000 profit on the black market. The veteran kept $11,000 of the

proceeds, and kicked back the remaining $9000 to the employee.

The veteran pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of supplementing the salary of a

Federal employee, and was sentenced to one year of probation. The employee was

charged with bribery and taken to court. It is illegal for individuals to either pay or

receive salary supplements for services performed by Government employees related to

their Government duties.

Accepting Kickbacks Earns Contractor 11 Years A federal investigation into bribery ended in three fraud convictions for the Chief

of Plans, Requirements, and Acquisitions for the Defense Systems Agency at the Navy

Ship Parts Control Center. The Department of Defense employee accepted $500,000 in

cash in exchange for awarding $18.1 million in contracts to an information technology

company. The investigation also uncovered a scheme by the employee, his brother, and

his nephew to defraud an environmental remediation business by submitting phony

invoices for more than $76,000. The employee was also convicted for lying about his

wife’s disability status to the Social Security Administration.

This trio of offenses earned the employee 11 years in federal prison, where he will

have a family reunion with his brother and nephew as well as his daughter, who was

convicted of making false statements to the grand jury.

(Source: York Daily Record, March 29, 2006)

IRS Employee Goes to Jail for Accepting Gifts In the course of collecting the debt from a construction company, an IRS Revenue

Agent became friends with the owner. Such good friends, that the agent accepted free

games of golf from the owner, as well as a number of free dinners at restaurants. Indeed,

the owner and the agent were such pals that the owner presented the agent with a

cashier’s check for $14,900, which he subsequently used to purchase a car.

Unsurprisingly, the agent admitted that the gifts adversely affected his collection

of the construction company’s outstanding debt. The agent received three years in jail

and six months of home confinement for an Unlawful Act of a Revenue Officer.

32

Postal Service Worker Faces Jail Time for Bribery A U.S. Postal Service (USPS) employee responsible for receiving and awarding

bids on USPS printing orders was arrested for trading Government contracts for cash.

The employee funneled valuable contracts to the owner of a Washington D.C. printing

business in exchange for payments of $11,575 to the employee’s divorce lawyer. Over

the course of the investigation, authorities uncovered four other printing companies that

admitted paying bribes to the former USPS employee.

The printing business owner pled guilty to bribery, and faces up to two years in

prison and a $250,000 fine. The USPS employee’s case is pending in court.

Compensation for Representational Services from Non-Federal

Sources (18 U.S.C. § 203-Type Violations)

Wanted: Employee Who Will Not Skip Meetings to Interview with

Other Companies An Army Brigadier General participated personally and substantially as an

advocate and approval authority in the effort to increase funding on a task order with a

Government contractor even while actively seeking employment with that company. His

efforts did not rise to the level of “negotiating” employment so he did not violate the

criminal prohibition of 18 U.S.C. §208, but was still in violation of C.F.R. 2635.604

when he took official action on behalf of a company with which he was seeking

employment instead of disqualifying himself from the particular matter. He also

extended official travel time and claimed unauthorized travel expenses in order to go to

job interviews and participate in other job seeking activities to the point of actually

excusing himself from official meetings. Finally, he charged unauthorized personal

phone calls to the Government and ordered subordinates to run personal errands for him,

including picking up his dry cleaning, driving him to the barber shop, and putting the

license plates on his personal car (also directing them to use an official Government

vehicle for these purposes). The General’s behavior violated the Joint Ethics Regulation

33

because he used Federal personnel, equipment, and duty time to conduct personal

business. His official participation in a particular matter on behalf of a company with

which he was seeking employment violated conflict of interest law. His other activities

amounted to misuse of Government resources (his subordinates’ time and the

Government car) and improper gift acceptance (due to a failure to reimburse subordinates

for expenditures such as mileage used when performing his personal services). As if that

was not enough of an ethical rap sheet, he violated DoD Directive 7000.14-R when he

decided to charge at least 15 of his TDY transactions to his personal credit card instead of

his Government travel card so that he could receive bonus point or air miles on the card.

The General was subject to Article 15 proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military

Justice, fined $5,000, and directed to reimburse the Government $5,300 for the improper

cell phone use and overpayment of TDY expenses. He was allowed to retire at his

current grade, O-7.

Receipt of Income by Federal Employee Results in 18 U.S.C. 203

Violation A former employee of the Department of Transportation was sentenced in the

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for receiving unauthorized

compensation from a Government contractor for performing Government duties. The

employee, in his capacity as a Supervisory Marine Surveyor for the Maritime

Administration, accepted compensation from BGI Enterprise, Inc. for providing

representational services in preparing a bid package for a $1 million U.S. Coast Guard

contract to remove sunken barges from the Intracoastal Waterway in Texas.

The employee pled guilty to one count of violating 18 U.S.C. 203, and the

Government dropped its charge of making false statements to the Government and failure

to report the receipt of the unauthorized compensation on his annual financial disclosure

form. The employee was sentenced to a one-year probation and ordered to pay a $2,500

fine.

Under this criminal statute, in general, Federal employees may not accept

compensation for representing someone else before a Federal agency on particular

matters in which the United States is a party.

34

INS Employee Accepts Illegal Payments A clerical employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) took

money in exchange for assisting in processing INS employment authorization documents.

She pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of 18 U.S.C. 203(a)(1), for receiving

compensation for representational services rendered in a particular matter before a

department or Agency of the United States. On December 12, 2000, she was sentenced

to two years probation and a $1,000 fine.

VA Employee Makes Improper Business Referrals A decedent affairs clerk at a Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital acted as an agent of

another employee at the VA hospital, who moonlighted at a nearby funeral home. The

clerk referred VA officials to the funeral home where his coworker moonlighted for the

handling of bodies abandoned at the VA hospital. The moonlighting employee paid the

clerk for referrals. Payments totaled approximately $450.

The clerk pled guilty on October 13, 1999, to a misdemeanor violation of 18

U.S.C. 203(a)(1), for receiving compensation for representational services rendered in

a particular matter before a department or Agency of the United States. On March 10,

2000, the moonlighting employee was sentenced to pay $25.

Congressional Staffer Accepts Cash in Return for Assistance with INS A Congressional staff assistant for a member of Congress was assisting a

constituent with filing an application to normalize the immigration status of the

constituent's daughter. While doing so, he solicited and received money from the

constituent in exchange for the preparation and filing of the application with the

Immigration and Naturalization Service.

He was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 203(a)(1)(B). On August 7, 1998, he

pled guilty and on February 5, 1999, he was sentenced to three years' probation, 100

hours of community service, a $2,340 fine and $780 in restitution. Under this criminal

statute, in general, Federal employees may not accept compensation for representing

someone else before a Federal agency on particular matters in which the United States is

a party.

35

IRS Employees Take Bribes To Ignore Tax Delinquency Two employees of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the two owners of a

car rental business engaged in a scheme in which they conspired to improperly handle the

company’s delinquent tax debt. The company was experiencing serious financial

problems and had substantial Federal employment tax delinquencies. The co-owners of

the company met with an IRS employee who introduced them to another IRS employee.

IRS employee number 2 told the co-owners how they could get their tax case transferred

from the IRS office where it was pending to the IRS office where he was employed. At

that point, he would permit the company to remain in business and pay a minimal amount

of its tax deficiency. The co-owners agreed to a payment of $1,000 per month for this

service. During this time period, the co-owners provided both IRS employees with free

rental cars and paid vacations to Florida. IRS employee number 2 also invested money

and acquired an interest in the company. In a separate scheme, IRS employee number 2

signed a one-year contract with a local levee board to perform an economic study.

The contract called for the IRS employee to be paid $85 per hour; he received

approximately $38,000 over the following year. At the same time, the levee board had

tax disputes pending under the employee’s supervision at the IRS. He did not disclose

this fact to his supervisors at the IRS.

The rental car company owners each pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 203,

offering compensation to a Government employee for representational services rendered

in a particular matter before a department or Agency of the United States. Owner number

1 received one year probation and a $250 fine. Owner number 2 was sentenced to five

years probation and $90,191 restitution. IRS employee number 1 pled guilty to violating

18 U.S.C. 201(b)(1)(A) (bribery) and was sentenced to five years probation and a $3,000

fine. IRS employee number 2 pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 208(a), taking official

action in matters affecting a personal financial interest, as well as 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(2)

(bribery); he was sentenced to twelve months in jail, three years supervised release, and a

$3,000 fine.

36

Congressional Staff Member Takes Payment to Help “Grease the

Skids” A Congressional staff member solicited $650 from a citizen who was seeking

relief from the state's Office of Workman's Compensation. He told the citizen that the

$650 would help "grease the skids" in getting her claim approved. The staff member

specifically requested that the money be provided in cash and arranged for it to be

delivered outside of the Congresswoman’s office where he worked. The citizen later

reported the matter to the FBI who introduced an undercover FBI agent who purported to

have a worker's compensation claim. In tape-recorded conversations with the

under-cover agent, the staffer solicited $650 from the agent. The pay-off was videotaped.

When interviewed several days later, he initially stated he never accepted money from a

constituent. When shown a photo of the FBI agent, he stated that he had been offered

money by her but had turned her down. When told that the person in the photo was an

FBI agent, the staffer stated: "I guess I'm in a lot of trouble, aren't I?"

He was charged with violations of 18 U.S.C. 201 and 203 and pled guilty to one

count of violating 18 U.S.C. 203. He received a sentence of probation and community

service, and was ordered to pay restitution.

DOT Employee Sentenced for 18 U.S.C. 203 Violation A former US Department of Transportation employee was sentenced in US

District Court for receiving unauthorized compensation from a Government contractor

for representing the contractor on a contract bid to the Government. The former official

admitted that he assisted a DOT contractor in the preparation of a bid package for a $1

million Government contract. The judge sentenced the former employee to a year of

probation and to pay a $2,500 fine.

Department of Labor Associate Deputy Under Secretary Violates 18

U.S.C. 203 The Associate Deputy Under Secretary for International Labor Affairs at the

Department of Labor was involved in an effort to promote low-income housing

subsidized by the Mexican Government for low-paid Mexican workers living along

certain sections of the United States-Mexican border. He was assigned the duty of

37

pursuing arrangements for a low-cost housing project in 1991. The project was to be

financed with private funds. He briefed the Deputy Under Secretary for International

Labor Affairs on the progress of the project. During November 1991, he met with United

States officials in Mexico City to discuss, among other things, private sector initiatives to

construct low-cost housing along the United States-Mexican border. He met in

Washington, D.C. and in Mexico City and other places with several real estate developers

interested in low-cost housing along the border. He and the real estate developers met

with Mexican banking and housing officials concerning the low-cost housing and the

possibility that the project would be financed through a Mexican low-income financing

authority. After several meetings, he told the real estate developers and the Mexican

housing officials that he would not be able to participate in the joint venture that the real

estate executives were forming due to his status as a Government employee. On July 22,

1992, the Under Secretary accepted the offer to work for the joint venture in dealings

with the United States. He was offered 10 percent of the net profits generated by the

project. The project involved the building of 6,000 condominiums and would generate

about $10,000,000 in net profits. The anticipated total cost of the project was in excess

of $120,000,000. The Under Secretary had an intermediary act on his behalf in signing a

memorandum of agreement with the real estate developers. The Under Secretary,

throughout the period in question, requested travel authorizations and submitted travel

vouchers to the Government for travel to Mexico to work on the Mexican worker housing

project

The Government charged that he agreed to accept compensation for

representational services before the United States in relation to a particular matter, the

housing project, in which the United States Department of Labor had a direct and

substantial interest in violation of 18 U.S.C. 203(a) and 216(a)(2). The Government also

claimed that the Under Secretary was acting as part of a conspiracy against the United

States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. The Under Secretary pled guilty to the charges and

was sentenced to probation for 5 years.

38

Immigration Consultant Offered Payment to INS Employee An "immigration consultant" who assisted resident aliens with the process of

obtaining INS travel papers offered compensation to an INS officer to speed up the

application process.

He pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of 18 U.S.C. 203(a)(2) on January 27,

1993, and was sentenced to one year probation, 6 months' home detention, and a $25

special assessment. The defendant was also prohibited from working in the immigration

consulting business.

Sergeant-at-Arms of the United States Senate Takes Free Flight to

Hawaii After Recommending Contractor The Sergeant-at-Arms is the chief purchasing agent for the Senate and in that

capacity he recommended that the Senate purchase and install a $219,000 AT&T

telephone system for the U.S. Capitol Police. Three weeks later, he accepted a round-trip

Washington-Honolulu airline ticket, valued at $2,700, from an AT&T employee.

He pled guilty on November 18, 1992, to one misdemeanor count of violating 18

U.S.C. 203 and was sentenced to one year of supervised probation, to pay full restitution

of $2,700, and a $5,000 civil fine.

Citizen Gives Illegal Payoffs to IRS Employee The defendant was audited by the Internal Revenue Service for excess deposits of

income. He offered the IRS agent conducting the audit furniture, equipment, and cash if

the agent would help him with his tax problems. The agent reported his offer to IRS

internal security. Subsequent discussions between the citizen and the IRS agent,

accompanied by payments of $240 and $200 in cash to the IRS agent, were monitored by

IRS internal security.

The citizen pled guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. 203, for compensating a

Government employee for representational services with respect to a particular matter in

which the United States had a substantial interest. The defendant was given a sentence of

probation.

39

Congressional Staff Member Pleads Guilty to 18 U.S.C. 203 Violation The defendant was a staff assistant to a U.S. Congressman in a district office in

Georgia whose responsibilities included handling constituent requests. The staffer

demanded and received a payment of $300 from a businessman who was seeking a

Federal grant to help him start up a business. The staffer also demanded a percentage of

any grant money awarded to the businessman. He told the constituent that he would have

to work nights and weekends on his own time to help the constituent and that the money

was to compensate him for the work.

The staffer was indicted for personally seeking payment for official acts in

violation of 18 U.S.C. 201(c) and for demanding compensation for representational

services before the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 203. He pled guilty to the §

203 violation and received a sentence of probation.

And the Award Goes to…Our Sponsor! The Director of the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health

accepted a cash award from a grant recipient hospital. The doctor recused himself for a

period of four weeks around the date of the award presentation from any dealings with

the awarding hospital and noted the receipt of the award on his financial disclosure

paperwork. Of course, this still leaves the question of whether the doctor was permitted

by statute to accept gifts from the donor organization – which fell under the prohibited

sources classification for purposes of the gift ban because of the doctor’s potential

influence over the selection of grant recipients. Congress has requested documentation

on all NIH award recipients so stay tuned.

Conflicts of Interest (18 U.S.C. § 208-Type Violations)

USAID Official Aids Himself As Chief Financial Officer of the U.S. Agency for International Development

(USAID), a former official helped draft a contract solicitation for a senior advisor—a

position that he intended to apply for after he retired—and tailored the solicitation to his

specific skills and experience. This is considered personal participation in a particular

40

matter that has a direct and predictable effect on his financial interest. Thus, by violating

the conflict of interest criminal statute, he was ordered to pay the Government a $30,000

penalty in settlement.

Documenting Misconduct Jeffrey Davis, a former employee of the National Archives and Records

Administration (NARA), faces a hefty penalty for engaging in a felony conflict of

interest. Mr. Davis served as an Archives Technician at NARA, a position in which he

assisted the public with requests for court documents maintained by NARA. He also

owned and operated a company that charged its customers a fee for obtaining court

records in addition to the fees charged by NARA. From September 2007 to October

2008, Davis used his official position at NARA to retrieve court documents for his

company’s customers. He also did not pay NARA the applicable fees associated with the

company’s customer requests for court records in order to conceal from NARA his

affiliation with his company and to increase his company’s profits.

Davis pled guilty to receiving payments from his company in connection with the

retrieval of court records from NARA using his official position. He admitted such

payments were an illegal supplementation of the salary paid by the government as

compensation for his services as a NARA employee. Davis’ sentencing is pending, but

he faces the possibility of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. It looks like his court

records business has left him with a court record of his own.

One Happy Family Spends Time Together in Jail A former programs director for the General Services Administration admitted to

using his position at Fort Monmouth to award payments from the government to himself

and his family. The former employee did this by awarding projects to two contractors

who in turn hired the employee’s personal business enterprise and his daughter as

subcontractors. Over the course of three years, they received over $800,000 in fees from

the government; the only catch, neither the employee’s personal business nor his

daughter actually performed any services for the government at all. Aside from the

obvious fraud to which the former employee, his wife, and his daughter pled guilty,

41

federal law also prohibits federal employees from making decisions concerning matters

in which they or their family members have a personal financial interest. Even if the

former GSA employee and his daughter had actually rendered the services that they

billed for, the former employee would still have been in violation of federal law by

awarding the projects to the contractors in the first place because his own financial

interests were involved. The former GSA employee and his family were ordered to pay

over $800,000 in restitution, and they each received prison sentences ranging from 12 to

46 months.

Moonlighting for Contractor Results in Employee Termination A contract manager at a Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) power plant in

Kentucky found himself out two jobs after investigators learned that he had been

moonlighting for the same contractor he was overseeing. As part of his responsibilities

with TVA, the contract manager reviewed contractor bids and oversaw contract

performance. The manager accepted a job with one of TVA’s contractors as a part-time

supervisor, and worked for the contractor in Oklahoma and Indiana on his days off and

vacation days.

Even though the manager’s actions did not result in any identified financial loss,

he was terminated from TVA and prosecuted for a violation of 18 U.S.C. 208. He pled

guilty and was sentenced to probation and a $1,000 fine.

This criminal statute prohibits personnel from participating in official actions

(such as reviewing contractor bids) that affect their employer, even if they work for that

employer only part time.

Awarding Contracts to Friend Earns Employee Five Years Probation Investigators quickly short-circuited the plans of a NASA employee to cash in on

an agency electrical services contract. The employee worked as a communications

specialist at Langley Research Center (LaRS), and was responsible for reviewing and

approving work done on a project to install new “telecommunications closets” in LaRS.

The employee recommended that the main project contactor hire a certain subcontractor,

which coincidentally was wholly owned and operated by the employee’s friend. The

prime contractor agreed. The subcontractor completed the work, and subsequently bid on

42

another subcontract. Upon receiving this second contract, the subcontractor covertly

hired another company to complete the work; this company was wholly owned and

operated by the NASA employee himself. At this point, tipsters notified investigators,

who found that the scam had netted the pair over $40,000.

The employee pled guilty to violating the conflict of interest statute, and was sentenced to

five years of probation and a $5,000 fine. This conflict of interest statute prohibits

personnel from participating in official actions (including merely making a

recommendation) that affect their financial interests.

Awarding Contracts to Spouse Earns Couple One Year in Prison A former Department of the Treasury employee and her husband were sentenced

to a year in prison for a scheme to funnel contracts to companies they personally

controlled. The employee, who served as an Employee Development Specialist, was

responsible for determining the training needs of Treasury employees and procuring

private training services. Investigators discovered that over the course of two years, the

employee had awarded 105 training contracts valued at more than $139,600 to companies

owned by her husband.

The employee pled guilty to several charges, including violations of 18 U.S.C.

208, participating personally and substantially in matters in which she or her spouse had a

financial interest. She was sentenced to a year of prison and three years supervised

release, and was ordered to pay $54,500 in restitution. Her husband also pled guilty to

several charges, including wire fraud and conspiracy, and received the same sentence as

his wife.

Awarding Contracts to Spouse II A contracting officer for the General Services Administration (GSA) wound up in

Federal court after funneling contracts to her husband’s employer. Investigators

discovered that the officer had directed over $11.5 million to the company that employed

her husband over the span of 15 months, all in the form of GSA purchases of food

preparation and serving equipment items. As a result of these purchases, the officer’s

husband received raises and a Jaguar from his employer.

43

The officer pled guilty to violating conflict of interest laws, and was sentenced to

180 days of home confinement and five years of probation. She additionally was ordered

to pay $161,000 in restitution.

Awarding Contracts to Spouse III The head of the Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee Program at the U.S.

Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Louisiana discovered he had done his job too

well when he was arrested and prosecuted for violating conflict of interest laws.

Authorities learned that the employee, who was responsible for arranging training

seminars that would foster cooperation with state and local law enforcement, had

funneled seminar contracts to a certain company; this company then subcontracted to a

company owned by the employee’s wife. This scheme had funneled $55,000 to the

employee’s wife, and the company had kicked back $20,000 directly to the employee

himself.

The employee pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 208, participating personally and

substantially in a matter in which he or his spouse had a financial interest, and was

sentenced to three years of probation, 200 hours of community service, and a $5,000 fine.

And the Band Played On…While the Ship Sank Around Them An Assistant Secretary of Telecommunications and Information within the

Department of Commerce spoke with ethics officers about a small dinner party she was

having at her home but neglected to mention: a) the party was for between 60 and 80

people and b) it was paid for by companies she was responsible for regulating. Although

the ethics officers found her to be in violation of the department’s regulations, the Justice

Department elected not to press criminal charges.

Watch Promoting Your Business on Government Time! The Facts: A Senior Advisor to the State Department had an interest in a business

that planned to develop a theme park in the Middle East. No problem there. But the

Advisor, in his official position, recommended to other State Department officials that the

State Department support the enterprise. That violated the law. After a guilty plea, he

44

was sentenced to a year of probation and ordered to perform 25 hours community service

and to pay a $20,000 fine. (Source: Federal Ethics Report, Dec. 2000.)

The Law: 18 U.S.C. § 208 (2003) forbids any employee of the executive branch

of the Federal Government from recommending in his or her official position any matter

in which he or she has a financial interest. The penalty for violating this law could be a

fine, a prison sentence for up to one year, or both—unless the violation is found to be

“willful,” in which case the maximum prison sentence increases to 5 years (see 18 U.S.C.

§ 216 (2003)).

Helping to Contract with a Potential Employer — A Bad Idea The Facts: A U.S. State Department official was negotiating an employment

contract with a private employer when he recommended in his official capacity that the

Department of Defense (DoD) enter into a contract with the same company. The aim of

the contract: to provide equipment and transportation to help recover the remains of U.S.

servicemen who were missing in action during the Korean War. Relying upon the

official’s recommendation, DoD contracted with that company for $717,000.

Unfortunately, the official’s recommendation to contract with a company with whom he

was negotiating employment violated the law. On January 10, 2002, the State

Department official was sentenced to three years’ probation and ordered to pay a $5,000

fine. (Source: Federal Ethics Report, Feb. 2002.)

The Law: With some exceptions, 18 U.S.C. § 208 (2003) forbids any officer or

employee of the executive branch from participating “personally and substantially” in his

or her official capacity in a contract, controversy, “or other particular matter” in which he

or she, or any person or organization with whom he is she is negotiating employment, has

a financial interest. Anyone violating this law “shall be imprisoned for not more than one

year,” fined, or both (see 18 U.S.C. § 216). By making a recommendation on a contract

involving a company with which he was negotiating employment, the official in this case

violated the law.

Judge Imposes Steep Prison Sentence in Conflict of Interest Case A former employee of the District of Columbia Government was sentenced in the

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for overseeing contracts involving an

45

individual with whom he was financially involved. The former employee served as chief

of the day programs branch of the D.C. Mental Retardation and Developmental

Disabilities Administration. This Administration placed mentally retarded adults in non-

residential day programs. The former employee supervised the assignment of mentally

retarded adults to day programs and administered the rules governing these programs.

During this time, the former employee assisted a woman in starting up a day treatment

program for mentally retarded adults. The former employee made loans to the woman

and referred clients to her. Thus, the former employee had a financial relationship with

the woman. The former employee was no longer impartial since he had a financial

interest in seeing her succeed so his loan could be paid back. In addition, as part of his

D.C. Government duties, he oversaw the supervision of her company. When she would

pay back a portion of the loan, she would also pay him additional monies.

The jury found the former employee guilty of conspiracy and of violation of the

conflict-of-interest law. Particularly because of the involvement of a vulnerable victim

(the mentally retarded individuals in the day program), the judge sentenced the former

employee to 46 months in prison, followed by 3 years of supervised release to include

100 hours of community service. The judge also ordered the former employee to pay a

$25,000 fine.

Federal conflict of interest statutes prohibit employees from taking official action

in particular matters in which they have a financial interest.

Federal Employee Convicted of Conflict of Interest Violation While

Searching for New Job Job-hunting efforts by a former Commerce Department Inspector General (IG)

turned up a Federal conviction for a conflict of interest instead of a job. As part of the

former IG's official duties, he reviewed the performance of a certain company, which had

contracted with the Commerce Department to update automated weather forecasting

systems. At the same time that he was performing these oversight duties, the former

official began negotiating employment with the same company.

A Federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. 208, prohibits Federal employees from

officially working on particular matters that have a direct and predictable effect on an

46

organization with which they are negotiating prospective employment. The former IG's

review of the company's performance on the Commerce Department contract violated

this statute. This is the same statute that bars Federal employees from taking official

action on matters that affect their own financial interests or those of their spouses or

children.

CIA Conflict of Interest A CIA employee paid $48,000 to settle a complaint brought by the Department of

Justice that the employee had participated in official matters in which his spouse had a

financial interest. The employee had served as the Contracting Officer Technical

Representative (COTR) on certain contracts between his agency and a private

corporation, where his wife worked. The contracts involved millions of dollars awarded

to the corporation. Although the employee's wife did not work on the same contracts as

the employee, she received stock options for the purchase of the corporation’s stock that

were affected by the corporation's profits from the contracts her husband had worked on.

A criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. 208, prohibits employees from participating

personally and substantially in matters that have a direct and predictable effect on their

own financial interests or those of their spouses, minor children, or organizations in

which they are employed. In this case, the employee's involvement in the corporation’s

contracts affected the profitability of the corporation, which was passed on to the

employee's wife through her stock options.

Former Postmaster General Pays Settlement to End Conflict of Interest

Investigation A former Postmaster General of the United States agreed to pay a $27,550

settlement to end a complaint brought by the Department of Justice pertaining to a

conflict of interest involving the official’s holdings in a soft drink company. The

complaint arose while the Postal Service was exploring a potential strategic alliance

between the Postal Service and the soft drink company. T he Postal Service Board of

Governors had the authority to approve the strategic alliance, and the Postmaster

General's role was to advise the Board of Governors with regard to their consideration of

strategic alliances. The Postmaster General rendered advice to the Board even though he

47

owned shares of stock in the soft drink company and therefore had a personal financial

interest in the decision.

The Postmaster General was charged specifically with violating 18 U.S.C. 208, a

criminal statute that prohibits an employee from participating personally and

substantially, as a Government official, in a particular matter in which he or she has a

financial interest.

High-Ranking Government Official Agrees to Conflict of Interest

Settlement A high-ranking Government official was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 208,

which governs official acts affecting a personal financial interest. The Federal employee,

an Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, was investigated for holding

stock in certain petroleum companies while serving as the Deputy Assistant to the

President for National Security Affairs. The employee was advised by the National

Security Council Legal Adviser to divest his shares of his family's petroleum and other

energy-producing stocks to avoid any conflict of interest. During the time the employee

was told to divest his stocks, he was involved in his official capacity in matters that may

have had a direct and predictable effect on the petroleum company.

The official agreed to pay the Department of the Treasury $23,043, which

represented the increased value of the stocks, to settle the matter.

D.C. Public Library Director Sentenced for Travel Reimbursement

Scheme The former director of the District of Columbia Public Library was convicted for

fraudulent activities involving Government cash advances and reimbursement payments.

At the time, the director was serving as both the head of the D.C. Public Library and the

president of a trade organization, the American Library Association. The director took

cash advances from D.C. Public Library funds to pay for expenses incurred in his role as

president of the American Library Association. He then asked the trade organization to

reimburse him by sending checks directly to his home address. In this manner, the

library director deposited over $24,000 into his personal bank account. Subsequently, the

director failed to reimburse the D.C. Public Library account for the cash advances.

48

In September 1998, a judge ordered the former director to pay back the $24,000

owed to the D.C. Library, plus an additional $16,860 owed for back Federal income

taxes. He was sentenced to five months of home detention, to be followed by two years

probation for violation of 18 U.S.C. 208, a conflicts of interest criminal statute.

Former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Agent Violates Conflict

of Interest Statute A former FBI agent pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 208, which prohibits

Federal employees from participating in official acts in which they have a personal

financial interest. The agent’s job responsibilities included researching and testing the

use of pepper spray for the FBI, which resulted in contact with the manufacturers of one

particular type of pepper spray. The agent subsequently recommended this pepper spray,

and in return, received $57,500 in payments from the manufacturer. Following the

agent’s recommendation, the FBI approved the use of the pepper spray for its agents,

resulting in a large purchase from the manufacturer. Additionally, as a result of the FBI

agent's research and recommendation, other law enforcement agencies nationwide began

to use the pepper spray produced by the manufacturer.

The former agent was sentenced to two months imprisonment followed by three

years of supervised release for his violation of 18 U.S.C. 208. This statute bars Federal

employees from officially participating (in this case, even making a recommendation) in

particular matters (in this case, a contract to buy pepper spray) that have a direct and

predictable effect on the employee’s financial interests or those of the employee’s spouse

or minor children.

Army Employee Sentenced for Conflicts of Interest A civilian employee of the U.S. Army pleaded guilty to violation of the conflicts

of interest statute (18 U.S.C. 208) in Federal Court and was sentenced to one year

probation and a $1,000 fine. The employee had participated in the awarding and

administration of contracts involving a company in which the employee owned stock,

thereby participating personally and substantially as a Government employee in matters

that affected his financial interests. The employee, who filed financial disclosure

49

statements (OGE Form 450), had also failed to disclose his financial interest in the

company.

Chief Financial Officer and Chief Information Officer of the United

States Department of Education Violates 18 U.S.C. 208 While the official held the above titles at the Department of Education, his wife

owned 600 shares of Compaq computer stock that she had inherited from her mother.

During this period, the official was involved in his official capacity in issues concerning

Compaq computers. The Government contended that the official violated 18 U.S.C. 208,

for participating personally and substantially as a Government officer in a particular

matter in which, to his knowledge, he and/or his spouse has a financial interest.

Pursuant to a civil settlement, the official paid the Government $20,000, and the

Government released him from its claims.

Chief of Staff at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in

Kansas City, Engages in Conflict of Interest During the same time the Chief of Staff was employed by the Department of

Veterans Affairs Medical Center, he was also employed as a physician by the University

of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, Kansas. Subsequently, the Chief of Staff in his

official capacity approved a contract for cardiocath services to the Department of

Veterans Affairs Medical Center by the University of Kansas Medical Center.

On March 8, 2000, the Chief of Staff pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of 18

U.S.C. 208, which bars employees from taking official action in matters affecting their

personal financial interests. On August 7, 2000, he was sentenced to pay a $250 fine and

a special assessment of $25.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Revenue/Settlement Officer Prosecuted

UP 18 U.S.C. 208 An IRS employee was assigned to a certain IRS collection matter, which gave

him inside information concerning a proposed stock exchange. After his role in the case

was substantially over, the employee purchased approximately $2,000 in the stock

subject to the proposed exchange based in part on information he had learned during the

50

course of his duties as a Revenue Officer. After the stock purchase, the IRS employee

had on several occasions, minor contact with the parties before the IRS. He eventually

went to his supervisor, disclosed his interest in the stock, and was removed from further

participation in the case. The IRS employee lost money on the stock transaction.

The IRS employee was prosecuted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 208 for participating

personally and substantially as a Government officer or employee in a particular matter in

which, to his knowledge, he had a financial interest, and 18 U.S.C. 216(a)(1). The

employee was placed on pretrial diversion for six months on the condition that he resign

from the IRS and perform 120 hours of community service.

District Conservationist at Department of Agriculture’s National

Resources Conservation Service Sentenced for Conflict of Interest The NRCS employee was the Government's technical representative on a USDA

soil and water conservation program that was implemented through a State of North

Carolina program called NCACSP (North Carolina Agricultural Cost Share Program).

Under the NCACSP program, local landowners can receive funding to reduce agricultural

pollution. The NRCS employee, in his position as a district conservationist, approved a

contract whereby a business venture owned by his spouse sold filter fabric to landowners

through the NCACSP program.

The NRCS employee was charged with a felony count of violating 18 U.S.C. 2,

aiding and abetting, and 18 U.S.C. 208, for participating personally and substantially as a

Government employee in a particular matter, in which, to his knowledge, his spouse has a

financial interest. Further, in his position as a district conservationist, he approved a

contract between the NCACSP and a cattle operation in which he and his spouse were

partners. Additionally, he approved a contract for fence construction between the

NCACSP and a third party. This contract resulted in payments that were transferred to a

partnership consisting of the NRCS employee, his spouse, and the third party. The

NRCS employee was charged with two additional felony counts of violating 18 U.S.C.

208, for participating personally and substantially as a Government employee in a

particular matter, in which, to his knowledge, he, his spouse, and general partner have a

financial interest. A jury convicted the NRCS employee on all counts. He was sentenced

by the court to one year of probation.

51

A Contracting Officer for the Department of the Army at Fort Jackson,

South Carolina Settles Conflict of Interest Allegation Sometime prior to November 1995, the contracting officer began a relationship

with a foreman for a Government contractor. The foreman subsequently started his own

company and began bidding on Government contracts at Fort Jackson. In November

1995, the former Government contracting officer assumed the title of project manager at

the new company and performed various duties for the former foreman without monetary

compensation. On April 9, 1996, the contracting officer approved and certified for

payment an invoice submitted by the company. She continued her employment

relationship with the company until June 1996. However, she submitted a written

statement to the Director of Contracting at Fort Jackson attesting that her association with

the company ended in March 1996.

The former contracting officer was indicted on December 3, 1997 for violating 18

U.S.C. 208, taking official action in matters affecting an employee’s personal financial

interest. She signed a Pretrial Diversion Agreement which requires that she complete 50

hours of community service.

Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Convicted on Conflict of

Interest and Fraud The AUSA for the Central District of California was indicted after it was

discovered that on numerous occasions he had made favorable recommendations to the

court, the probation office, and other prosecuting offices on behalf of cooperating

witnesses and defendants in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars. The AUSA

had, for example, accepted $98,000 from one cooperating witness who had previously

been convicted in the Northern District of Texas and on whose behalf the AUSA had

argued for leniency at the sentencing hearing. In addition, he had used his official

position to secure entry into the United States of several foreign nationals whom he

believed would make substantial investments in a company in which he and his wife had

a controlling financial interest. Once the foreign nationals entered the United States, two

Iranian companies with which they were affiliated loaned a total of $860,000 to the

AUSA’s company.

52

The AUSA pled guilty to one felony conflict of interest count, 18 U.S.C. 208, and

two counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343 and 1346. He was fined $7,500

and sentenced to two years in prison plus three years of supervised release.

Patrick Air Force Base Engineer Violates Conflict of Interest Statute An engineer in the Contracts Department at Patrick Air Force Base started a

business, along with former military personnel and former Government employees,

which submitted a bid to the base. The engineer, in his official capacity, provided the

technical evaluations on the bid. Through the bidding process, the company was awarded

the contract.

The engineer was charged with participating personally and substantially in a

particular matter in which he had a financial interest, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 208.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 216(a)(1), he pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of section 208

and was sentenced to nine months’ probation and fined $2,500.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Employee Guilty of Violating

18 U.S.C. 208 The FAA employee reviewed the applications of aircraft component

manufacturers. He was the FAA representative on a flight test of a Ground Proximity

Warning System (GPWS) manufactured by a certain corporation. In the course of his

duties for the FAA, the employee obtained access to proprietary information submitted to

the FAA by the GPWS manufacturer. At the same time, the FAA employee was

developing and marketing his own GPWS for sale to the public.

The FAA employee was charged with a violation of 18 U.S.C. 208 due to the fact

that he participated personally and substantially in the FAA's test flight of a GPWS while

developing his own GPWS; he pled guilty and was sentenced to three years probation.

CIA Employee Violates Conflict of Interest Statute A Central Intelligence Agency Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative

(COTR) pled guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. 208 after investigators discovered that he

had used his Government position to secure employment for a friend who owed him

money. The employee’s duties as a COTR included the technical supervision of two

53

Government contracts with a particular company through which the Government funded

a classified program. The employee used his position as a COTR to cause the company

to hire one of his friends as a consultant to the program. The friend owed a substantial

sum of money to the employee and his wife and did not have the financial means to repay

them. At no time did the employee disclose to the Government or the company that the

friend owed him or his wife money. The Government charged that, under these

circumstances, the COTR had a financial interest in the company's decision to enter into a

consulting agreement with the friend and that he violated 18 U.S.C. 208 by participating

in that decision.

The COTR pled guilty to a felony violation of section 208. He also pled guilty to

a charge of possession of child pornography obtained through unauthorized personal use

of a Government-furnished computer. He received three years supervised release and was

ordered to pay a $4,000 fine.

Computer-Aided Navigation Leaves Retired Captain Lost at Sea A Coast Guard Captain working on the integration of legacy navigation systems

with GPS spoke with a government contractor assigned to the project about post-

retirement work. Once retired, the captain made recommendations concerning purchases

to his former colleagues still wearing Coast Guard uniforms – purchases that directly

benefited the captain in his new role as consultant. The government maintained that the

captain violated 18 U.S.C. § 208(a), by negotiating for future employment with a

contractor he dealt with in his active duty capacity, and 18 U.S.C. § 207 (a)(1), by

attempting to influence government personnel on a project over which he had exercised

considerable responsibility. The Government settled with the captain for $25,000.

Conflict of Interest Results in $10,000 Fine A Navy Construction Representative overseeing a company’s two construction

contracts with the Navy secured employment to subcontract the same projects he was

supposedly inspecting, splitting the proceeds with an equally unscrupulous employee of

the company. He pled guilty to one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 208 (barring an

employee from taking official action in matters affecting certain personal or

organizational financial interests) and one count of violating 41 U.S.C. § 53, the Anti-

54

Kickback Act of 1986. His get-rich-quick scheme cost him six years probation, six

months home detention, 100 hours of community service, and a $10,000 fine.

Agricultural Economist and Wife Violate 18 U.S.C. 208 in Visa Scam A Department of Agriculture agricultural economist found himself facing jail time

for his decision to attempt to exploit his Government position. The economist was put in

charge of a Department program to bring together U.S. and Chinese agriculture experts.

Instead, the economist forged documents, with the assistance of his wife, to extort

$82,000 from nearly 100 Chinese nationals seeking entry to the United States. While the

economist’s case is still pending, his wife pled guilty to one count of aiding and abetting

an unlawful conflict of interest in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 208 and 2. She received two

years probation and 100 hours of community service.

Consultant’s Attempted Bribery Garners $1000 Fine A consultant in the office of the District of Columbia Chief Technology Officer

ended up in court after soliciting kickbacks from a private company. The consultant was

tasked with awarding contracts to information technology companies, and decided to go

back to a company he had recently approved and demand a cut of their profits.

Unhappily for him, the company went to the authorities instead. The consultant pled

guilty to one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 208 (a), taking official action in matters affecting

an employee’s personal financial interest, and was sentenced to a year of probation and a

$1000 fine.

Attempted Bribery of Immigration Official Nets a Year of Probation An applicant for U.S. citizenship slid $200 in an unmarked envelope across to an

Adjudication Officer during his interview, hoping for a favorable outcome. He got a

year’s probation instead.

Contractors and Army Officer Face Five Years for Conflict of Interest A raid of an Army Colonel’s residence revealed evidence that led to charges for

the officer as well as two employees of a Maryland military contractor. The officer

supervised solicitation, award, and oversight of more than 17,000 military contracts in

55

Korea. Upon learning that the officer was considering retirement, two military

contractors contacted him regarding his potential employment at the contractors’

company. Over the course of the next six months, the officer and the contractors had

lengthy discussions regarding the possible job offer. The negotiations involved a trip to

company headquarters as well as at least seven dinners at expensive restaurants, all paid

for by the company.

During this time period, the officer did not recuse himself from matters involving

the company. In fact, the officer on one occasion overruled the decision of technical

experts who recommended awarding a contract to a different company, and instead

recommended the contractors’ company. On another occasion, the officer told another

contractor that if he wished to participate in the program in the future, he should bid as a

subcontractor to the first contractors’ company. The contractors’ internal emails

advocating the officer’s hiring noted that “[h]is expectations are high but his value has

been proved.”

Tips from a member of the officer’s command led to an interagency investigation

that uncovered egregious bribe-taking to the tune of more than $700,000 (much of which

was hidden in bundles of cash under the officer’s mattress) in addition to the illegal

negotiations with the contractors. These bribes had resulted in nearly $25 million in

contracts being illegally rewarded to companies for building facilities and providing

security guards at military installations in Korea.

The officer pled guilty to charges of conspiracy and bribery, and was sentenced

to 54 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. He was also

assessed a $10,000 fine, was stripped of rank, and will receive no retirement pay. The

two contractors face five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Employee Fined $13,000 for Conflict of Interest A Supervisory Acquisition Management Specialist at Wright-Patterson Air Force

Base was indicted for participating in employment negotiations with a company while he

simultaneously worked on contracts involving that company. As part of the employee’s

job responsibilities, he provided a bidder on a Government contract with advice and

recommendations related to the bidding process. However, at the same time, the

56

employee was in employment negotiations with one of the bidder’s subcontractors, and

was well aware of the subcontractor’s interest in the bidder’s success.

The employee pled guilty to violating the conflict of interest statute that prohibits

an individual from engaging in employment negotiations with a company while

simultaneously participating in an official capacity on a Government contract with the

company. The employee was sentenced to one year of probation and ordered to pay

$12,000 in restitution and a $1,000 fine.

Conflict of Interest Nets Employee $900 Fine When determining which company should receive a contract to produce a video

on Y2K issues for the Department of Commerce, a producer/director in the Office of

Public Affairs settled on a small production company that specialized in voiceover work.

There was only one small problem—the company was owned by the employee and his

wife. The Department of Commerce eventually paid the company over $10,000 for their

work, earning the employee and his wife a profit of over $1000.

Unfortunately for the employee, his fifteen minutes of fame were cut short by a

District Court Judge, who sentenced him to one year of probation, 100 hours of

community service, and a $900 fine. The employee was found guilty of violating 18

U.S.C. 208(a), which bars employees from participating personally and substantially in a

matter in which they have a financial interest.

Employee Fined $1000 for Conflict of Interest Funneling contracts to friends certainly did not pay off for the Senior

Development Officer of the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB). The officer was

responsible for developing and securing funding for revenue-producing projects for the

IBB, an independent agency affiliated with the State Department. When determining

which company should receive an $85,000 grant to train affiliate radio stations in

Uganda, the officer selected a business owned by his friend. In return for this generosity,

his friend obligingly selected a subcontractor near and dear to the officer’s heart – a

company owned and managed by the officer and his wife. In order to fulfill the $15,000

contract, the officer managed to convince IBB to fly him to Uganda with government

57

funds as part of his “official duties.” However, IBB soon discovered the officer’s

relationship with the subcontracting company.

For his violation of 18 U.S.C. 208, which forbids employees from participating

personally and substantially in a matter in which they have a financial interest, the officer

earned three years probation, 50 hours community service, a $1000 fine, and was

required to pay over $15,000 in restitution.

Conflict of Interest Results in Jail Time for Acquisitions Executive A former senior Air Force official found herself in Federal prison after her

violation of conflicts-of-interest statutes. The official engaged in job negotiations with a

private company while still employed by the Air Force as the chief negotiator for a $23

billion leasing plan with that company. While the official did eventually recuse herself

from participation in decisions involving the company, her recusal came three months

after the beginning of her negotiations.

The official began negotiations with the company through encrypted e-mails sent

by her daughter, who was an employee of the company; her daughter set up a secret

meeting between the official and company executives. At the start of the meeting, the

official informed the executives that she was still participating personally and

substantially on matters involving the company; however, both parties elected to continue

the meeting and to simply keep it a secret. The negotiations continued for several more

months, all while the official was still participating personally and substantially in

decisions, approvals, and advice in matters in which the company had a financial interest.

After the official finally submitted her letter disqualifying herself from working on

matters involving the company, investigators began scrutinizing the timeline of her story.

The official lied repeatedly to investigators as to the start date of her employment

negotiations, collaborating with the company executives to match stories.

The former official pled guilty in Federal court, and was sentenced to nine months

in prison and seven months either in a halfway house or under home detention. The

company executive faces a jail term of no more than six months under Federal sentencing

guidelines.

58

Federal Procurement law specifically forbids a company or its executives from

making any offer or promise of future employment to a Federal procurement officer.

Likewise, procurement officers are prohibited from discussing employment so long as

they oversee matters involving that company.

Credit Card Abuse

Government Employees Double Down on Taxpayer-Funded Gambling Two Government employees used their government-issued credit cards to fund

their gambling and bowling binge, to the tune of almost $35,000. Unfortunately,

gambling was just not enough. One of the employees, a manager, racked up an additional

$13,000 in expenses to cover car rentals for personal use. In the end, approximately

$47,000 of the tax payer’s money bankrolled the employees’ fun and games. The

manager, spending a total of $45,000, repaid the debt to the Government and took an

early retirement. The other employee, spending a total of $2,400, repaid the debt to the

Government and was fired.

Sporting Goods Scam Steals from Uncle Sam It seemed like the perfect scam: Owners of a sporting goods store near a military

installation allowed service-members to charge personal items on government purchase

cards (GPC). Service-members would overcharge the cards and then split the extra cash

between themselves and the store owners. One unlucky E-6 was caught when he charged

$1950 on a GPC and pocketed $850, which he used to buy a number of sporting goods.

The perfect scam didn’t work out so well for the E-6. He was convicted in a court

martial, reduced to E-1, given 18 months confinement, and given a bad conduct

discharge.

Pin-Heads Ignore Government Purchase Card Procedures The Manager of an Army Bowling Pro Shop received factory rebates for the

bowling products he purchased for the shop using a Government credit card.

59

Government Purchase Card procedures stipulate that cardholders should take advantage

of any rebates offered, whether cash or merchandise, and that manufacturer and retailer

rebates should be made payable to the appropriate Government agency. The Manager

purchased property for the shop, a MWR entity, on a Government contract; therefore, the

rebates were the property of DoD and should have been turned in to the agency’s

financial officer. Instead, the Manager kept the rebates, which were in the form of Best

Buy gift cards, for his personal use. He was even heard bragging about all of the free

stuff he would be able to buy. Furthermore, he improperly lent his Government impact

card to another civilian bowling facility employee in violation of Government Purchase

Card standard operating procedure which requires that only the named individual on the

card may use it for official purposes in compliance with agency accounts. This employee

kept the cash and gift card rebates he received from using the Manager’s card; failing to

provide them to the MWR finance officer and resulting in a $230 cost loss for the

Government. These actions constitute larceny and improper use of a Government

purchase card. The Manager resigned in lieu of further disciplinary action. The

employee also resigned.

Electronics Scam Lands Sailor in Hot Water An active duty Navy sailor and authorized Government purchase card user

noticed one day that some of the items she had purchased for her Command were missing

from the warehouse. She decided to go ahead and repurchase the items to “prevent any

of her shipmates from getting in trouble for stealing Government property.” This

incident seemed to give the sailor an idea because about two years later she decided to try

to use her Government purchase card to conduct widespread theft. Ever cautious, she

first conducted a few “test runs” by purchasing items for her personal use on her

Government card. The misuse went undetected so the sailor joined with a co-conspirator

to discuss even bigger plans. They decided to buy laptop computers and plasma

televisions on the sailor’s Government card and to re-sell them for personal profit. Navy

auditors discovered the scheme and determined that the sailor and her co-conspirator had

defrauded the Government out of $363,243. The sailor had used her Government card to

purchase 162 notebook computers, 65 big screen televisions, 22 digital cameras, GPS

60

devices, camcorders, computer monitors, and home theater systems. Her efforts to

prevent her shipmates from getting into trouble and her subsequent emulation of the local

cut-rate electronic retailer led the sailor to plead guilty to one count of theft of

Government property in violation of 18 U.S.C. §641. She is scheduled for sentencing in

August 2008.

Stealing Isn’t Only Way to Misuse a Government Issued Credit Card A U.S. Postal Service employee received a Government Issued Credit Card

(GICC) through Citibank to cover relocation costs. In receiving the GICC, the employee

signed a contract with Citibank stating he would pay the entire balance of the credit card

within 25 days of the billing statement closing date. He also agreed with the U.S.P.S. to

pay the balance on time regardless of whether or not he had received reimbursement.

The employee accrued a balance of over $6,000 on the account, but did not make an

initial payment on the balance until four months after the due date, and did not pay off the

entire balance until 10 months after the due date. The employee procrastinated in

requesting reimbursement and then he waited six weeks before depositing the

reimbursement check and making a payment toward the balance on the credit card. The

employee also retained a portion of the reimbursement funds for himself, leaving a

balance on the card for six more months. Citibank canceled the card and the employee

was fired for failing to pay off the GICC on time and misusing government funds.

Use of Fellow Soldiers’ Government Credit Cards Earns Reprimand While conducting operations in Kuwait, an Army Major in the Corps Support

Group Advance Party needed a number of mission-essential items. He ordered these

items with several Government Purchase Cards (GPCs). The only problem, the cards

were not his. Before deployment, the Major had managed to collect a list of the numbers

and security codes of GPCs held by members of his unit who were not deploying. These

cardholders then noticed a rash of unexplained payments from Kuwait. As cardholders

are personally responsible for the charges on their cards, several cardholders disputed the

charges in accordance with regulations. This led to a long series of unnecessary and

frustrating exchanges with the credit card company.

61

As a result of his actions, the Major received counseling. While there was no

evidence that he had used the cards for personal purchases, his use was unauthorized.

GPCs can only be used by their authorized cardholder with the consent of an Approving

Official. Unauthorized use bypasses the safeguards created to minimize abuse.

Credit Card Abuse and Misuse of Resources Results in Suspension An IT Specialist with the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) was

reprimanded for a trio of offenses committed over the span of a year. Investigators found

that the specialist used his DISA Government travel card to pay for $2,735.45 worth of

food, gas, and rental cars while on personal trips to Indiana to visit his girlfriend. The

specialist additionally claimed per diem allowances for two days on which he was

technically Absent Without Leave (AWOL). Finally, the specialist used his Government

cell phone to make personal phone calls such that unofficial use comprised anywhere

from 30-50% of his total usage.

The specialist was suspended for three days, reimbursed the Government

$1,384.38 for his cell phone abuse, paid off his Government credit card, and took two

days of leave to account for his period AWOL.

Running Up the Government “IMPAC” Card The Facts: A (former) civilian director of the Pentagon’s Graphics and

Presentation Division used her Government-issued, Merchant Purchase Authorization

Card (“IMPAC”) to make 522 fake purchases from a Seattle company created by a fellow

schemer solely to carry out the fraud. Payments by the Government for the “purchases”

were made to the Seattle firm, but the co-schemer would simply cash the checks and split

the “take” with the director. The director was caught and sentenced to three years and

one month in prison and was ordered to pay $1.7 million in restitution.

The Law: Don’t steal. Theft violates various state and Federal laws.

Senior NCO Abuses Government Credit Card An investigation concluded that a senior U.S. Marine improperly used his

Government credit card by purchasing gas for his personal vehicle, dinners, and concert

tickets as well as obtaining cash advances—all unrelated to official travel.

62

The Marine was counseled by his supervisor and required to reimburse the Government

for all unauthorized purchases. He retired soon after the investigation.

DoD Employee Charges Caribbean Vacation to Government Credit

Card A GS-13 Department of Defense employee used her Government credit card to

pay for her personal vacation to the Caribbean. The case was referred to the U.S.

Attorney, who declined prosecution. The employee was counseled by her supervisor and

warned that if any other inappropriate charges were made on her account she would be

disciplined. (Yes, she reimbursed the Government.)

Department of Defense Employee Makes $6,000 in Personal Charges An investigation revealed that a Department of Defense civilian employee had

made inappropriate, personal charges in the amount of over $6,000 using his government

travel card. The employee was suspended without pay for failing to follow the terms of

the credit card use policy.

Public Official Misuses Credit Card A Department of Energy employee recently pled guilty to a theft of Government

property charge. The employee made over $7,000 in personal charges on her

Government credit card by hiding the charges among legitimate Government purchases.

The employee also falsified invoices and credit card records to further conceal the

purchases. The employee was sentenced to two years probation and ordered to pay

restitution for the amount of the charges.

Department of Veterans Affairs Employee Misuses Credit Card A former Department of Veterans Affairs employee recently pled guilty to one

count of theft of Government property. The former employee used her Government

credit card to purchase expensive items (TVs were a favorite), which she then re-sold or

kept for herself. The judge sentenced her to five years probation and ordered her to pay

$170,000 in restitution.

63

Department of Defense Civilian Employee Misuses Credit Card A Department of Defense civilian employee recently pled guilty to one count of

theft of Government property. The employee entered into an arrangement with two

vendors in which they would charge the Government credit card for non-existent goods

and services. The vendors would then give cash to the DoD employee. The vendors

charged over $12,000 and kicked back $3,000 to the employee. The employee was

sentenced to two years probation with four months home confinement, and ordered to pay

$12,473 in restitution and a $1,000 fine.

U.S. Government IMPAC Credit Card Abuse by Air Force Employees Three former civilian employees from Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, were

convicted of conspiracy to defraud the Government (18 U.S.C. 371) and conversion of

U.S. property for personal use (18 U.S.C. 641). The employees used the U.S.

Government IMPAC credit cards to purchase personal items, which included extensive

home improvement products and car-related materials. One of the employees certified on

official documents that purchases on the IMPAC credit card were properly used by

members of the reserve unit.

One of the employees was sentenced to a one year and one day prison term, and

the other employees were sentenced to six months in a Federal halfway house and were

required to make full restitution.

Cardholder Supervisor Convicted for Credit Card Abuse The supervisor of four IMPAC cardholders was convicted for misusing

Government credit cards. The supervisor used the credit card numbers of his four

subordinates, none of whom were suspected of any wrongdoing, to make multiple

purchases from a local auto parts store and a military surplus store. The supervisor then

proceeded to re-sell most of the products at his bar. Some of the items purchased

included gas grills, truck parts, and automobile tires. The supervisor convinced the

managers of the auto parts store and the military surplus store to alter the credit card

invoices to list what would appear to be official military supplies, instead of listing the

actual goods purchased. The evidence indicates that the DoD supervisor defrauded the

Government to the tune of $200,000.

64

The employee pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 287, for submitting false and

fraudulent claims, and 18 U.S.C. 208, for approving the fraudulent purchases. He was

sentenced to ten months in prison.

Accountant Goes to Jail for Misuse of Travel Card A supervisory accountant at the National Science Foundation (NSF) found herself

at the receiving end of criminal charges for government travel card abuse—a situation

that should have come as no surprise, given that her responsibilities included managing

the NSF’s travel card program. Investigators found that on forty-seven separate

occasions, the accountant used her travel card to make personal purchases and

unauthorized cash withdrawals. When the Investigator General began an audit of the

travel card program, the accountant purged her own transactions from the records in an

(unsuccessful) attempt to hide her misuse.

The formerly footloose accountant was saddled with a $1,000 fine and sentenced

to 20 weekends in jail as a condition of a two-year probation. Her misuse of the travel

card not only ended her career at NSF, but barred her from all future federal employment.

Government travel cards should only be used for expenses related to official travel.

Employee Faces 10 Years for Theft of Credit Cards Following up on two stolen Government credit cards, investigators cut short the

entrepreneurial career of a utility worker for the Norfolk Naval Station Public Works

Center. After stealing the two cards, which were used to gas fleet vehicles, the worker

began to offer to fill the tanks of other gas station patrons in exchange for cash valuing

half the pump price. The worker’s popularity was short-lived, however, as investigators

quickly noticed the sudden boom at the pumps. An internal audit conducted by the Navy

revealed that the loss to the Government from the two purloined cards totaled $44,866.

The employee faces a maximum sentence of ten years imprisonment and a fine of

$250,000.

Friend’s Credit Card Use Costs Employee $13,000 An Army recruiter in Christiansburg, Virginia paid the price for gifting a

Government credit card to a friend – literally. When the recruiter’s office issued the

65

recruiter a Government Fleet credit card, he magnanimously decided to give the card to

his friend. His friend subsequently used the now-stolen card for personal expenditures

totaling over $13,000, including gasoline, automotive parts, and food. The recruiter’s

“generosity” was amply rewarded by the District Court judge, who sentenced him to two

years of probation and held him liable for the total $13,000 spent by his friend.

The Government Fleet credit card program provides for the maintenance of

Government owned and leased vehicles and is only to be used by authorized employees

for official purposes.

Federal Employee Stole Credit Card Numbers to Hire Prostitutes A former Transportation Department employee pled guilty to one count of wire

fraud for using counterfeit checks and stolen credit card information to hire prostitutes

while conducting official Government business. The Federal employee, who has begun

treatment for sexual addiction, accumulated at least $39,000 from over 100 escort

services. The employee stole his colleagues’ credit card numbers and the receipts of

random strangers that he found left on restaurant tables. The employee admitted he often

pretended to be the senior vice president of a publicly traded company during his

“shopping” trips. A court sentenced the official to serve six months house arrest and

three years probation.

(Source: International Herald Tribune, March 13, 2007)

Endorsements

SES Uses Title to Promote Non-Federal Entity A Senior Executive Service employee served on the board of directors of a non-

Federal entity (NFE). While on the board, he listed his official position and DoD contact

information on the NFE’s Web site. Prior to this ethical violation, he had failed to

request a legal opinion regarding his ties to the NFE. He was counseled and told to

remove his title from NFE materials.

66

Service Officer Sanctions Website by Wearing Uniform A Service officer allowed her photograph, while wearing her uniform, to appear

on the website of a non-federal organization. The website identified her as a Board

Member of the organization. The posting created the impression the officer was

participating in the management of the NFE in her official capacity, or alternatively, that

the Federal Government endorsed the organization (in violation of 5 C.F.R. 2635.702(b).

The officer was verbally counseled and the picture on the website was cropped to cover

the uniform.

Be Careful from Here Onward Seven senior military officers, including four Generals, were found to have

misused their positions, improperly implying DoD endorsement or support of a Non-

Federal Entity while appearing in a promotional video for the Christian Embassy.

A Pentagon Chaplain arranged for Christian Embassy employees to obtain Pentagon

building passes for filming. The video showed interviews conducted at recognizable

Pentagon locations, featuring the senior officers in uniform and displaying their ranks as

they discussed their Christian faith. Two SES Government employees who appeared in

the video without title and whose comments did not create the appearance of DoD

sanction were found to have properly participated in their personal capacity. The military

officers, however, violated Paragraph 3-209 of DoD 5500.7-R, Joint Ethics Regulation

which prohibits actions by employees suggesting DoD endorsement of Non-Federal

Entities, and C.F.R. 2635.702 which prohibits using one’s public office for private

endorsement.

Financial Disclosure Violations

Valley Fraud A former official of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) received two years

probation and was ordered to pay a $5,000 fine and perform 150 hours of community

service for failing to disclose information on his financial disclosure form. John

Symonds pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for making a false material statement

67

by failing to disclose information regarding the receipt of money from a source other than

his U.S. Government salary on his financial disclosure form.

While working as a manager for TVA from November 2000 through December

2002, Symonds was required to complete an Executive Branch Confidential Financial

Disclosure Report, Office of Government Ethics (OGE) Form 450, as well as update his

financial disclosure report annually by submitting Optional OGE Form 450-A. Despite

owning a company that received over $50,000 in 2002 from another company, Symonds

filed an OGE Form 450-A certifying that he had no new reportable assets or sources of

income. Symonds and his former spouse used the payments for personal expenses.

Failure to Report Gifts From Abramoff Gets DOI Official Two-Years of

Probation A former Department of the Interior Officer who accepted Washington Redskins

tickets, which cost over $2,000, as well as other gifts from lobbyist Jack Abramoff, was

sentenced to two years of probation, and to pay a $1,000 fine. Abramoff was seeking

official action from the officer when he gave the officer the gifts. The officer failed to

disclose these gifts on the required financial disclosure report (Form 450), and after being

investigated in connection with the Abramoff scandal, he pled guilty to making a false

certificate or writing. Public officials who are required to file a Form 450 must disclose

gifts that exceed a minimum value. Bottom line: if public officials keep secrets about the

gifts they receive from sources like lobbyists, they will receive a gift from the federal

government that they cannot keep secret — probation.

Lawyer Says Financial Disclosures Are a Nuisance, Client Gets

Probation A world-renowned Alzheimer’s research scientist for the National Institutes of

Health (NIH) was sentenced to serve two years of probation and four-hundred hours of

community service after failing to disclose several hundred-thousand dollars in

consulting fees he received for services rendered to a prohibited source — a

pharmaceutical company doing business with his agency. The scientist violated a federal

conflicts of interest statute and federal regulations requiring him to disclose payments

from outside sources on his financial disclosure report (Form 450). The purpose of the

68

required financial disclosure is to help employees recognize conflicting financial interests

and avoid violating the law. The scientist’s lawyer said that it is common for NIH

researchers not to file financial disclosures because they consider the disclosures a

“bureaucratic nuisance.” Maybe so, but this scientist should have known, as most world-

renowned medical researchers probably do, that untreated nuisances often become

debilitating illnesses. In addition to probation and four-hundred hours of community

service, the scientist was also forced to forfeit the consulting fees he had received from

the pharmaceutical company, and was deprived of his retirement from the government.

Consultant Fails to File Financial Disclosure Report, Pays Fine Instead A DoD Consultant failed to file the final public financial disclosure report when

the Consultant’s appointment expired. The Consultant received several reminders, but

chose to ignore them and never filed the report. Unfortunately, the Consultant was

unable to ignore the Department of Justice. After substantial negotiations, the filer

agreed to pay a $2,000 fine, to pay the $200 late filing fee, and to file the financial

disclosure report that should have been filed in the first place. (And don’t forget the

attorney fees) Bottom line: Failure to file a financial disclosure report was very costly.

(DoD Standards of Conduct Office)

HUD Employee Fails to Disclose Ill-Gotten Real Estate on Financial

Disclosure, Loses Job A HUD employee’s spouse-like partner submitted the winning bid for a HUD-

owned property. Among other violations, the HUD employee failed to notify the agency

that someone with whom she was living was submitting a bid for the property. After the

property was purchased, the employee’s partner transferred the property to the employee

for $1. To prevent HUD from learning that the property came to the employee through a

straw-man transaction, the employee failed to list the property on her financial disclosure

report as was required. The employee was found to have falsified her financial disclosure

report and was fired.

69

Failing to Report Gift Leads to FBI Agent Resignation A Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) in the Charlotte, North Carolina FBI field

office was forced to resign in the wake of revelations that he had failed to disclose gifts

from a suspect in an organized gambling and money laundering investigation. The SSA

had been acting head of the White Collar Crime Squad, which was handling the

investigation; he had also served as the suspect’s official handler after the suspect agreed

to cooperate with investigators. Due to his duties, the SSA was required to file an OGE

Form 450, the Confidential Financial Disclosure Report. The SSA certified that he had

received no gifts or travel reimbursements from any one source totaling more than

$260.00. However, investigators soon learned that on two separate occasions, the SSA

had accompanied the suspect to Las Vegas, where the suspect paid for the SSA’s hotel

and gambling expenses. The value of the trips was estimated to be in excess of $6,000.

The SSA pled guilty to 18 U.S.C. 1018, making a false writing. He was forced to

resign from the FBI and was sentenced to two years’ probation and 400 hours of

community service.

$11,000 Fine for Failure to File The Facts: A former Census Bureau official was assessed the maximum fine

when he failed to file his financial disclosure report as required by law upon ending his

Government employment. Before his retirement, the official had received multiple

memos reminding him of his obligation; after he missed the filing deadline, the official

received a number of additional certified letters informing him of the availability of

extensions and the consequences of failing to file.

The Department of Commerce eventually referred the matter to the Department of

Justice, which filed a complaint alleging that the official knowingly and willingly failed

to file a financial disclosure report. Finding the official a totally unresponsive party with

flagrant violations, a Federal court entered the default judgment and ordered an $11,000

fine, the top civil penalty permitted under the statute. The court emphasized the

flagrancy of the violation, citing the employee’s choice to ignore the multiple notices and

warnings provided to him.

(Source: United States v. Gant, No. 02-2312, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10620 (D.D.C. June

17, 2003).)

70

The Law: The Ethics in Government Act (EIGA), 5 U.S.C. app. § 101 et seq.

(2003), requires senior officials, who file SF 278s, to file a final financial disclosure

report “on or before the thirtieth day” after termination of their senior positions (in

addition to annual filing requirements). Anyone who knowingly and willfully fails to

provide such a disclosure faces prosecution and fines of up to $10,000 (see 5 U.S.C. app.

§ 101(e)-(f), app. § 104).

D.C. Mayor Financial Disclosure The failure to report $40,000 he had earned in consulting contracts cost the Mayor

of Washington, D.C., $1000 several years ago. The Mayor violated the city's campaign

finance code by neglecting to report these earnings on his financial disclosure report.

Under 5 C.F.R. 2634.701, willful failure to file a public financial disclosure report

(SF 278) or willful falsification of any information required to be reported may result in

administrative actions or $10,000 in civil penalties. In addition, criminal actions may be

brought against Federal officials who provide false information on their financial

disclosure reports.

Former Government Official Convicted for Filing False Financial

Disclosure Report Under the Ethics in Government Act, a former Chief of Staff (CoS) for the

Secretary of Agriculture was required to file the Public Financial Disclosure Report (SF

278). While in office, the CoS and his wife received payments totaling approximately

$22,025 from two businessmen who were longtime friends and business associates of the

CoS, and who coincidentally received subsidies from the Department of Agriculture

(USDA) totaling $63,000 and $284,000, respectively. The CoS was required to, but did

not, report these payments on his SF 278. While the USDA Inspector General was

conducting an investigation of the CoS with respect to conflict of interest allegations, the

CoS made a sworn declaration that he had not received such payments. He also stated

that his only income from the time he became Chief of Staff, aside from the sale of a

former residence, was his USDA salary.

71

The former CoS was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 1001, for failing to disclose

the payments received from the two businessmen during on his SF 278 and for making a

false sworn statement to the USDA Inspector General. He was sentenced to 27 months

in jail.

Former EEOC Chairman Failed to File Financial Disclosure Report The former chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled

a lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice for $4,000. The lawsuit alleged that the

chairman did not file a required financial disclosure report for two years that he was in

Government service. In the previous year, the chairman filed the yearly financial

disclosure report required of all senior executive branch employees (SF 278). For the

subsequent two years, however, he submitted a photocopy of the first year’s report. The

Chairman acknowledged that the photocopied report did not reflect changes in his

income. He further maintained that the inaccuracy was inadvertent and the result of a

mistake made in good faith. The Director of the Office of Government Ethics noted that

the chairman did not respond to four requests to file the required report over the course of

two years.

Former FDA Commissioner Convicted for False Financial Disclosures

and Conflict of Interest The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sentenced a former

Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to serve three years of

probation, along with 50 hours of community service, and to pay fines totaling

$89,377.36. The former Commissioner pled guilty to two misdemeanor charges

involving false financial disclosures and a violation of the conflict of interest statute, 18

U.S.C. 208, which prohibits a Government employee from participating in any activities

in which he, his spouse, or minor child has a financial interest.

Between 2002 and 2006, the former Commissioner held several senior positions

which required him to certify and file on six occasions a financial disclosure report that

included all of his investments valued at more than $1,000. Although the Commissioner

declared he and his wife had sold the stock they owned in numerous “significantly

regulated organizations,” the couple failed to disclose that they actually retained stock in

72

several of the companies. The conflict of interest violation occurred when the

Commissioner was acting as the Chairman of the FDA’s Obesity Working Group.

Investigators discovered two of the companies in which the Commissioner and his wife

held stock had a direct financial interest in the group’s conclusions. Although there was

no evidence that the Commissioner’s financial interests altered the group’s conclusions,

the Court concluded that his participation in the deliberations affected the integrity of

group’s findings. (Source: Federal Ethics Report, March 2007)

Fraud (Violations Not Covered Elsewhere)

Posing as Mother? In August of 2013, the son of a deceased mother was sentenced to 14 months in

prison after pleading guilty to stealing about $350,000 by cashing social security and

federal annuity checks meant for his long-dead mother. He had negotiated and converted

these checks from March 1999 through June 2012.

Your Posters are My Posters An army officer was convicted both for making false statements, including false

statements in his confidential financial disclosure report (failure to report an outside

position and the income from that position), and for stealing government property. The

employee put in an order at the department print shop, certifying that a series of posters

were for official business. The posters were actually for the employee’s side business.

Additionally, the employee purchased a conference table, for which his own business got

a $400 credit toward a conference table of its own. The employee was sentenced to 2

years of probation, 6 months house arrest, a fine of $25,000, and was ordered to pay

$1,600 in restitution.

73

Service-member Pockets BAH Money For two years after his divorce, an active duty service-member continued to list

his ex-wife on his Basic Allowance for Housing paperwork, allowing him to pocket extra

funds, including a family separation allowance. While the overpayment continued for

two years, the service-member continued to keep the money. Once the command caught

on, he was court martialed, sentenced to six months confinement, fined, and reduced in

rank.

Veterinarian Technicians Pocket Thousands An E-6 and E-4, both veterinarian technicians for a service, received Basic

Allowance for Housing to which they were not entitled. They lived in base housing

while receiving overpayments. They took no action to report the mistake. Overall, the

Government lost more than $26,000. Both service-members were reduced in rank and

ordered to repay all funds.

“I thought they were mine.” A government contractor stole eight 40-foot Container Express (CONEX)

shipping/storage units valued at $56,000 from a Service base in the United States.

Investigators found two stolen government license plates on the contractor’s personal

vehicles, used to access the base. The contractor claimed he thought the CONEX units

were abandoned. He was charged with grand larceny and debarred from doing business

with the government.

“I do” … Though I Don’t Even Know You Six Service members stationed in the United States were arrested and charged

with defrauding the government for their part in a scheme to marry Russian women in

exchange for drawing military benefits. The brother of one of the service-members setup

the introduction to the Russian women while living in New York. The service-members

then filed false basic allowance for housing (BAH) and family separation allowance

(FSA) claims for their absent wives that defrauded the government of over $234,000.

The investigation revealed most of the men never actually lived with their so-called

wives. The service-members were court-martialed, reduced in rank, and ordered to pay

74

restitution equaling the amount of money each received fraudulently. The women, who

obtained visas enabling them to stay in the States as a result of the false marriages, were

deported.

Side Business Ends Service Supply Chief’s Career A Service Chief storekeeper for a submarine in the United States was found guilty

of using ship’s funds to buy merchandise to later sell for his personal gain. The Chief

made off with over $90,000 of unauthorized items including watches, computers, PDAs,

TVs, chairs, and cameras, which he stored in his personal room until selling. He was

court-martialed and sentenced to two years in prison, reduced down to an E-1, separated

under a bad conduct discharge, and ordered to pay $25,000 in fines. His immediate

supervisor, a junior Service officer, was administratively separated from the Service.

$75,000 worth of merchandise was never recovered.

New York State of Mind A Service sergeant was court-martialed for fraud and larceny of government

funds, for knowingly submitting false basic allowance for housing (BAH) claims for

three years while stationed overseas. The sergeant claimed his wife and kids were living

in New York City, the highest BAH city in the system, while they were actually living in

Puerto Rico. The sergeant received over $50,000 he was not entitled to under the false

claims. He was sentenced to twelve years in prison, reduced to E-1, and dishonorably

discharged.

Married or Not? A soldier got married and provided his marriage certificate to the Service, but

shortly after the marriage his wife returned to her home in another state. Nine months

later the marriage was annulled. The soldier did not report that he was no longer married,

and continued to collect a housing allowance for himself and his now former wife. He

also listed her on travel reimbursements and received additional per diem for trips where

she did not accompany him. In total, the soldier was paid approximately $45,000 in

funds that he was not eligible to receive.

75

At some point, the soldier appeared to sense that he was going to be caught

because he tried to throw off the investigation by filing for divorce even though the

marriage had been annulled much earlier. He then informed investigators that he was not

aware that the marriage had been annulled prior to his divorce filing. The ruse was not

particularly effective because court records showed the soldier was physically present at

the annulment hearing. His case was referred for court martial.

Imaginary Ball and Chain Drags Staff Sergeants Down An Army Staff Sergeant stationed at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina continued to

receive Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) at the married rate even after he was

divorced from his wife. He knowingly and willfully failed to submit documentation to

reflect this change, thus receiving more money than he was entitled to and therefore

committing fraud and larceny. The Staff Sergeant was charged with larceny under the

Uniform Code of Military Justice and found guilty by General Court Martial. He was

sentenced to five months in confinement, forfeiture of $5,000 and a reduction in grade

from Staff Sergeant (E-6) to Private First Class (E-3). In a similar case, a Staff Sergeant

at U.S. Army CENTCOM was caught illegally receiving BAH at the higher married rate

when he was actually single. The soldier submitted a false marriage license, ultimately

receiving $15,100 in Basic Allowance for Housing and Family Separation Allowance to

which he was not entitled. His “wife” also fraudulently received $13,200 in Tricare

healthcare benefits. The relationship must have gone sour though, because she ended up

turning him in to military investigators. After such a betrayal, one can only assume he

will now be filing for a fake divorce.

All-Expenses Paid Bachelor Pad with Maid Service Included? A Lieutenant Commander working as the Naval Station Great Lakes Bachelor

Housing Officer misused Government resources when he lived in the quarters without

cost and received free housekeeping and amenities. He was charged on three counts

under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Articles 81, 92, and 134) and issued a Letter

of Reprimand as a form of Non-Judicial Punishment. A civilian Government official

who was aware of the Lieutenant Commander’s illegal conduct, but failed to report it was

also issued a Letter of Reprimand for violating the Basic Obligation of Public Service

76

requiring that he disclose any known fraud, waste, abuse, and corruption (C.F.R.

2635.101(b)(11)).

Handling of Service Members’ Injury Claims Wounds Government

Financially A Navy civilian Medicare claims examiner was employed to represent

Government interests in the settlement of Medical Care Recovery Act (MCRA) claims.

Her job entailed regularly negotiating with insurance companies and injured military

personnel in order to recover Government expenditures on medical care for service

members and their dependents who were injured due to the acts of uninsured third

parties. Although the Navy has authority to waive its claims on behalf of injured service

members against insurance companies, the examiner orchestrated a scheme in which she

used her position and authority to waive claims and to fraudulently obtain money for

herself that was owed to the Government. In one case, the examiner handled the claim

for a Petty Officer who had been injured in a motorcycle accident. She told the service

member that she could increase the amount of his settlement if he agreed to split the

amount with her. When he agreed, the examiner notified the insurance company that the

Navy was waiving its MRCA claim. When the company sent the Petty Officer a $6,000

check, he sent her $3,000 cash just as she had directed. It turned out that the Petty

Officer had been working with law enforcement authorities all along. The U.S. Attorney

prosecuted the examiner and obtained a conviction for one count of Mail Fraud. She was

sentenced to two months in prison, two years of probation, a $100 special assessment,

and was debarred by the Navy for three years.

Invoices Submitted on Behalf of MakeBelieveCompany, Inc. A civilian employee and Government purchase card holder working at the Naval

Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) in Maryland conspired with an outside vendor to create

fraudulent invoices in the name of fictitious companies such as Greenway Supply,

Government Supply, and Aerospace Technologies. The invoices fraudulently showed

that these imaginary companies had provided goods and services to NSWC when in fact

no products or services were ever provided. The Government employee used his

purchase card to pay for hundreds of such invoices, all in amounts of less than $2,500 so

77

as to avoid attracting too much scrutiny. When NSWC took away the employee’s

purchase card, the vendor continued to submit the false invoices in cooperation with a

second employee. Ultimately, the vendor made between $200,000 and $400,000 in profit

from the conspiracy. All three people involved were guilty of making false and

fraudulent statements to the Government and embezzling money belonging to NSWC.

The vendor pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the Government, 18 U.S.C.

§371. The Navy debarred the vendor and both employees for three years.

Marine Corps Say Goodbye to Officers who Schemed with Thai

Vendors Three U.S. Marine Corps Forces Pacific, Joint U.S. Military Group, Thailand

(JUSMAGTHAI) officers were caught receiving bribes and kickbacks from a Thai

vendor. A Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigation revealed that a Marine

Corps Major, either directly or through his wife, accepted approximately $100,000 in

gifts from a Thai vendor, to include a truck and a loan for a house. The Major continued

to engage in business with the vendor and awarded him contracts, but did not disclose his

personal financial conflict of interest to his agency designee as mandated by 18 U.S.C.

§208. He also passed inside information to the vendor, allowing her to increase her bid

while still ensuring she was the lowest bidder and therefore increasing her profit margin.

He was also charged with maintaining a sexual relationship with a woman who was not

his wife, which is illegal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Another Marine

Corps Major received gifts, including free hotel rooms, from a prohibited source in

violation of 10 U.S.C. section 892 and section 933. Additionally, a third Marine Corps

Major also worked with the vendor to defraud the Government. The Major, taking

advantage of his position as the first person in the logistics chain to come into contact

with goods and services provided by contractors, signed receipts for delivery of purchase

orders even though the vendor had only delivered incomplete shipments. The

Government was nonetheless billed the cost of full shipment, while the conspiring parties

split the profits from these “ghost shipments.” The Major signed orders for at least five

ghost shipments and received $2,324 in bribes for his participation. All three Majors

were debarred from Government contracting by the Navy Acquisition Integrity Office.

Furthermore, they were all charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first

78

Major was dismissed from active duty, sentenced to four years in confinement and a

$25,000 fine. The second Major received a Punitive Letter of Reprimand and was

subjected to a $3,060 forfeiture of pay. The third Major was discharged and sent to spend

six months in the brig.

Overpricing by Contractor Results in $44,000 Refund An Army technician ordering a Seal Replacement Parts Kit from a defense

contractor noted that the price of the kit seemed unusually high based on the price of each

individual component, and contacted investigators. Investigators examined the price of

the components and the cost the company incurred to assemble each kit, and discovered

that the contractor was marking up each kit by approximately $500. Investigators further

discovered that the Government had purchased a large number of the kits at the inflated

price.

As a result of the observant technician’s number-crunching, the defense

contractor agreed to a voluntary refund of $44,000.

Favoritism Results in Senior Official’s Resignation A senior official at the National Defense University left his post after his

relationship with a subordinate came to light. Employees told investigators that they had

witnessed inappropriate physical contact between the official and a component program

director. The official allegedly favored the program director by approving leave requests

during critical periods, affording her more authority than her position entitled her, giving

her leniency regarding her work schedule, and consistently relying on her opinion above

others. The official was also accused of creating a hostile work environment by

repeatedly demeaning employees. The program director was separately charged with

misusing Government property by taking excessive leave and misreporting time and

attendance.

The official resigned his post, and the program director was detailed to a different

component and received counseling.

79

Contractor Fraud Results in Investigation Contractors who were awarded a $564 million contract to construct the Olmsted

Dam on the Ohio River found themselves high and dry after the discovery of fraudulent

reimbursement charges billed to the Government. The contractors had purchased a

number of vehicles to be used on the job, and properly billed the purchase cost to the

Government. However, investigators discovered that the contractors allowed eight

senior-level employees to drive their vehicles home at night as part of an “incentives”

program. These contractors were further involved in three accidents with the vehicles,

the cost of which was submitted for reimbursement to the Government.

To Defraud or Not To Defraud? That’s an Easy Question! The Facts: An Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officer conspired with two private

tax preparers to develop a scheme to defraud the United States Government. The tax

preparers told persons owing money to the Government that they could negotiate a lesser

debt if they would go ahead and pay off what was owed. The IRS officer would then

enter false information into the relevant files showing that the individuals in question had

insufficient assets to cover their debts. This convinced the IRS to halt collection efforts.

Strangely (or not), the money paid to the tax preparers never made it to the IRS. The tax

preparers were sentenced along with the IRS officer, who, for tinkering with the debts of

others, ended up with quite a “debt” of her own: She was sentenced to 3 years and one

month in prison, to be followed by 3 years of probation, and ordered to pay in restitution

$322,135.

The Law: 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2003) authorizes fines and imprisonment for up to 5

years for anyone conspiring with one or more other persons to defraud the United States,

if any one of the conspirators takes any action to carry out the fraud. In this case, all

three persons appear to have taken such an act. The IRS officer in this case was also

charged under 26 U.S.C. § 7214 (2003) of the Internal Revenue Code, which requires that

any IRS officer who conspires to defraud the Government be discharged from their office

and, if convicted, pay up to $10,000 in fines, serve up to 5 years in prison, or both.

80

Conflicts of Interest and Lies Garner Alderwoman and Daughters

Federal Convictions A Milwaukee alderwoman and her two daughters found themselves as defendants

in federal court for funneling city funds to a non-profit organization they had created.

The alderwoman, before her election, founded a non-profit organization eligible

to carry out neighborhood social grants; it was largely funded by Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) grants awarded to the City of Milwaukee. These grants were given

to the city upon the condition that each grant recipient comply with HUD regulations.

Among these regulations was a conflict-of-interest provision preventing any elected

official that participated in the apportionment of the HUD grants from obtaining a

financial benefit “either for themselves or those with whom they have business or

immediate family ties.”

Upon the alderwoman’s election, she turned the executive directorship of the non-

profit organization over to her two daughters, who both drew a salary from the

organization. Both daughters had different last names from each other as well as the

alderwoman, and the relationship between the three was unknown by the City and HUD.

After taking office, the alderwoman secured membership on the Community

Development Policy Committee, the committee that apportioned HUD grants. She was

informed by the City Attorney of the HUD conflict-of-interest rules, and wrote a memo

assuring the City that her husband and (singular) daughter only worked for the non-profit

on a volunteer basis. This deception persisted the following year, when the City began to

suspect a scam; the alderwoman wrote another letter to the city attorney admitting that

her (singular) daughter had been an employee of the non-profit, but assuring that she had

since left her position (which was untrue). However, by this point, the City was aware of

the alderwoman’s deception, and she was charged with various violations of federal law.

During the time period the alderwoman was in office, the non-profit accepted a

number of lucrative HUD grants from the city. Each contract included a recitation of the

HUD conflict-of-interest provisions, and was signed by both daughters in their capacity

as executive officers. When queried by the City regarding the familial relation of the two

daughters to the alderwoman, the daughters chose not to respond. This duplicity earned

both daughters charges in federal court alongside their mother.

81

The alderwoman and one of her daughters pled guilty to various violations of

federal law. The second daughter chose to go to trial, and was convicted and sentenced

to two years’ probation and a $1000 fine for violating her contractual duty to disclose her

familial relationship with the alderwoman.

(Source: 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 10878)

Employee Gets Ten Years for Authorizing Fraudulent Retirement

Benefits A retirement benefits specialist at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management

(OPM) developed an embezzlement scheme that eventually involved 15 cohorts and

resulted in the theft of $3.7 million from the Civil Services Retirement Trust Fund. The

specialist’s duties included authorizing monthly benefits payments as well as one-time

payments intended to retroactively adjust Federal benefits. Instead of authorizing

payments for the proper recipients, the employee began to authorize payments to fellow

employees. The scheme allowed at least 25 people to obtain illegal one-time payments

from the Retirement Trust Fund, after which they paid kickbacks to the OPM employees.

The specialist was sentenced to 10 years in prison for her role as the ringleader of

the operation. Her coconspirators received lesser terms.

Boyfriends Can Be Very Expensive For Employees Who Steal Funds A U.S. Forest Service employee faced a maximum of 13 years in prison for

stealing over $642,000 and committing tax fraud. The employee paid restitution of the

entire $642,000 prior to sentencing.

The employee admitted that during her job of overseeing payments with Federal

charge cards and Government checks, she wrote Government checks to her boyfriend,

who occasionally contracted with the Forest Service. Disguised as firefighting payments,

the checks were deposited in the couple’s joint bank account and used to pay for

expenses and gambling. It appears this relationship came at a very high price.

(Source: OregonLive.com)

82

Contractors and Federal Personnel, Working Together, Defraud the

Government and Go to Jail An investigation by several Government agencies in support of the Justice

Department’s National Procurement Fraud Task Force revealed a complex scheme to

defraud the Coalition Provisional Authority – South Central Region (CPA-SC) in al-

Hillah, Iraq. The perpetrators, a former Department of Defense (DoD) employee, several

former soldiers and numerous public officials, including two high-ranking U.S. Army

officers, conspired in a fraud and money-laundering plan involving contracts in the

reconstruction of Iraq.

The Task Force discovered the co-conspirators connived to rig bids on contracts

so that CPA-SC awarded them all to the same contractor. In addition, the conspirators

stole over $2 million in currency that CPA-SC had slated for reconstruction. As a reward

for their efforts, the contractor provided the officials with a variety of gifts, including

over $1 million in cash, sports cars, jewelry, computers, liquor, and offers of future

employment.

The Task Force charged a former Lieutenant Colonel, two active Lieutenant

Colonels, a Colonel and two civilians in a 25-count indictment. The court sentenced the

civilian DoD employee to serve 12 months in prison, while the former Lieutenant

Colonel earned 21 months in prison for his role. Another former soldier received nine

years in prison and a forfeiture of $3.6 million for charges of conspiracy, bribery, and

money laundering, as well as weapons possession charges.

The contractor at the center of the conspiracy pled guilty to related charges, and

received a 46 month prison sentence. In addition, the court ordered him to forfeit $3.6

million. (Department of Justice 07-449, June 25, 2007, www.usdoj.gov)

Official Steals Himself Jail Time A former Intelligence Contingency Funds (ICF) officer for the Department of

Defense (DoD) stole over $100,000 from his former employer. The ICF official pled

guilty to one count of theft and embezzlement of Government property, admitting that

over a period of three years he had used his official position to withdraw cash from a

Government bank account. By falsifying DoD accounting vouchers and forms, the

official increased his own bank account with DoD funds while he performed his official

83

budgeting, disbursing, and accounting duties for ICF. The U.S. District Judge sentenced

the official to serve 12 months in prison, pay $106,500 in restitution, and serve three

years of supervised release.

(Source: Department of Justice 07-416, June 8, 2007)

Gambling and Other Contest Violations

Federal Employee Rides into Trouble A local motorcycle dealer sponsored a "motorcycle poker" event across public

lands. The off-road bikes followed a pre-set route, stopping along the way to pick up

playing cards. The one with the best poker hand at the end won a new motorcycle. The

winner? The on-duty Government employee who was to follow the contestants, making

sure that nobody had fallen off his bike or gotten lost. He didn’t get to keep the bike

because he won the prize while carrying out his official duty. While section

2635.203(b)(5) of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Executive Branch Employees

allows Federal employees to keep prizes in contests that are open to the public and not

related to the employee’s official duties, in this case, the employee won while performing

official duties.

Fantasy Football IS Gambling Gambling allegations were made against a Department of Defense employee who

was operating a “fantasy football league” in his workplace. The participants each paid

$20 to participate. The funds were used for a luncheon at the end of the season and

trophies were purchased for the winners.

Although upon the surface the “fantasy football league” does not appear to be

gambling per se, the General Counsel ruled that the activities constituted gambling in the

workplace in violation of paragraph 2-302 of DoD 5500.7-R, Joint Ethics Regulation.

84

Fantasy Football IS Gambling II Allegations were made regarding Air National Guard members running a “fantasy

football” league on Government computers. Each member of the league contributed $10

to play, with the winner buying all of the other participants’ pizza at the end of the

season. It was determined that the winner actually expended more on the pizza than the

amount of the winnings. It was also determined that activities associated with the game

were conducted on break and lunch times.

Section 2-302 of DoD 5500.7-R, Joint Ethics Regulation, prohibits gambling by

DoD personnel while on duty or while on Federal property. In addition, it was a misuse

of Government resources to carry out such an activity on Government computers. The

guardsmen involved were counseled by their commanding officer.

Gambling Ring Garners Federal Charges Tipped off by a coworker, investigators discovered that a painter at the

Department of the Interior was running a full-fledged gambling operation on Government

premises. While on official duty, the painter received betting slips from other employees

and made payoffs. The painter’s subsequent threatening phone call to the tipster earned

him a further charge of conduct unbecoming a Federal employee.

41 C.F.R. § 102-74.395 forbids all persons entering in or on Federal property

from participating in games for money or other personal property, operating gambling

devices, conducting a lottery or pool, or selling or purchasing numbers tickets.

Gift Violations

A Gold-Plated Retirement A former General commanding U.S. forces in South Korea improperly accepted

over $5,000 in gifts and cash, including gold-plated pens, from a South Korean

benefactor. The General claimed that the gifts were accepted because the South Korean

was a longtime and personal friend, despite the fact that the South Korean did not speak

85

English and they were forced to communicate through hand signals and gestures. The

General repaid the South Korean in full and was allowed to retire at a lower grade.

Sampling of Gift Not Sufficient A Lieutenant Colonel committed dereliction of duty when, in violation of the

JER, he received a bottle of Ballantines 30 year-old Scotch valued at $400 and failed to

report it and properly dispose of it. In lieu of a court martial, the colonel resigned from

the military service for the good of the service under other than honorable conditions.

Like a Private Helicopter Ride to Work? How About a Model Ship? The Facts: According to sworn testimony and documentation acquired by the

office of a military service Inspector General, a senior military officer accepted gifts from

the owner of a corporation that serviced and provided landing facilities for military

aircraft. The gifts to the officer included a helicopter ride to work, a shirt with the

corporation’s logo, a miniature model airplane, meals at a Christmas party, and a leather

jacket. The officer allegedly returned the jacket but did nothing to compensate for receipt

of the other gifts, the value of which exceeded (and probably well exceeded) $100. This

conduct occurred as one of a series of alleged offenses that resulted in the officer being

relieved of command, issued a punitive letter of reprimand, and ordered to forfeit $1000.

The Law: 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(14) (2003) requires all Federal employees to

avoid any actions that a reasonable person, who knew the relevant facts, could take to be

a violation of the law—including the prohibition on providing “preferential treatment to

any private organization or individual,” mentioned at § 2635.101(b)(8). In this case, the

value of the gifts the officer accepted could make it appear that he might influence

Government contracting in favor of the corporation. To be sure, he enjoyed some neat

gifts—for a time. However: “Public service is a public trust,” and it requires that Federal

employees place loyalty to “the laws and ethical principles above private gain” (§

2635.101(b)(1)).

Even more directly on point, 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.202(a) and 2635.203(d) apply the

general principles mentioned above by prohibiting Federal employees from (among other

86

things) soliciting gifts or accepting gifts—whether solicited or not—from any person who

“[d]oes business or seeks to do business with the employee’s agency.”

There are some exceptions to these rules. 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204, for example,

allows the acceptance of “unsolicited gifts having an aggregate market value of $20 or

less per source per occasion,” provided that the value of gifts accepted under the “$20

rule” from a single source do not amount to more than $50 in a given calendar year. In

the case above, the officer’s gifts exceeded (and probably well exceeded) this limit.

If you have received a gift or gifts and anticipate that it has put you in jeopardy of

violating these, or any other, regulations, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.205 tells you what you must do

— and that does not include covering it over (which might make things worse). First, if

the gift is an item and not an activity like a helicopter ride, you may return it to the giver

or pay the giver the fair market value (see subsection (a)(1)). If that is not practical, you

may — “at the discretion of the employee’s supervisor or an agency ethics official” —

donate the item to an appropriate charity, share the item with your office, or destroy the

item (see sub-section (a)(2)). For an activity or event, you obviously can’t return the gift,

but you can and must pay back the giver the market value of the gift; simply giving back

something similar will not suffice (see sub-section (a)(3)). If an employee “on his own

initiative, promptly complies with the requirements of this section” (that is, § 2635.205),

and the gift was not solicited by the employee, then he or she will not be considered to

have improperly received that gift.

"Great dinner, thanks for the tip." Just prior to a major contract award, a Bureau Director went out to dinner with

one of the potential competitors at a swanky Washington restaurant. The wine alone cost

over $100 per bottle. Too bad the Director didn't realize that a Washington Post reporter

was at the next table. The story received front-page coverage in the next day’s Post. By

that afternoon, the Director announced that he had accepted a job in private industry — a

job he couldn't refuse (with his father-in-law).

The Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5

C.F.R. Part 2635) generally prohibit Federal personnel from accepting gifts (including

meals) from persons who do business or seek to do business with the employee’s agency.

87

One Party Too Many The Big Boss was retiring and his second-in-command called the secretary to ask

her to set up a retirement party. He directed her to send a memo to the staff advising

them of what they were expected to contribute. She was assigned paper plates, napkins,

plastic utensils, and a paper tablecloth. Everyone, including the secretary, was expected

to contribute $25 for food and gifts. To the surprise of no one, the second-in-command

was selected as the new Big Boss. His new branch chief called the secretary to have her

set up a "promotion" party. The branch chief’s memo to the staff advised them of what

they were expected to contribute. For the secretary, it was once again paper plates,

napkins, plastic utensils and paper tablecloth. Everyone, including the secretary, was

again expected to contribute $25 for food and gifts. To no one’s surprise, the branch

chief was selected as the new second-in-command. Her senior analyst called the

secretary and asked her to set up a "promotion" party . . . The secretary contacted the

Ethics Office instead, where disciplinary action was initiated.

Subpart C of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive

Branch (5 C.F.R. 2635) establishes the rules for gifts between employees. In general an

employee may not give a gift or make a donation to a gift to a superior. Furthermore,

employees may not generally accept gifts from other employees who receive less pay.

There are certain exceptions, of course.

Gift from a Prohibited Source As a gesture of thanks, a retailer gave an Army soldier a briefcase after the

soldier, using his Government credit card, had purchased office supplies from the retailer.

The soldier accepted the briefcase in violation of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for

Employees of the Executive Branch (5 C.F.R. Part 2635), which generally ban

acceptance of gifts by Federal personnel from persons who do business or seek to do

business with the employee’s agency. After an investigation, the soldier returned the

briefcase and was counseled.

88

Gift from Subordinate Results in Removal A Supervisory Contract Specialist at Andrews Air Force Base was terminated

after it was discovered that she had accepted a total of $2820 from a subordinate (a

subordinate that the specialist had, in fact, personally hired) on two occasions.

Despite the specialist’s claims that she did not know that accepting the gifts was

wrong, an Administrative Judge affirmed the termination of a 20-year federal career.

5 C.F.R. Part 2635, the “Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the

Executive Branch,” forbids employees from accepting gifts from lesser-paid employees

unless (1) the employees are not in a subordinate-superior relationship, and (2) there is a

personal relationship between the two employees that would justify the gift.

Employee Cited for Improperly Accepting Pharmaceutical Samples The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) conducted an investigation after it

found that an employee at the VA Medical Center at Chillicothe, Ohio, had misused his

position and improperly solicited and accepted pharmaceutical drug samples. Upon

questioning, the employee acknowledged accepting five different medications from

representatives of four pharmaceutical companies, gifts totaling approximately $600.

The pharmaceutical representative required a physician to sign for the samples. While a

physician did indeed sign off, he testified that he only did so due to pressure from the

employee. The investigation uncovered agency-wide confusion regarding the acceptance

of drug samples.

Federal gift rules prohibit an employee from accepting or soliciting a gift from a

person doing business with the employee’s agency. An employee may accept unsolicited

gifts having a market value of $20 or less per occasion, provided that the aggregate

market value of individual gifts from any one person does not exceed $50 in a calendar

year. There is no exception, however, that allows for the acceptance of solicited gifts. In

response to the agency-wide problem identified in the investigation, VA officials issued a

statement explaining the application of the Federal gift rules to the acceptance of

pharmaceutical samples, and developed a fact sheet for agency employees with specific

guidance.

89

Involvement in Claims Against the Government or in Matters

Affecting the Government (18 U.S.C. § 205-Type Violations)

Don’t Play Attorney Against Your Federal Employer! The Facts: In the “off-time” from her work with the Social Security

Administration, a senior attorney opened her own legal practice and represented clients

with claims against that very same Administration. For her double-duty, she was sued by

a U.S. Attorney and ended up agreeing to a settlement that required her to pay the United

States $113,000 for this and other violations—not a typical attorney’s fee! (Source:

Office of Government Ethics memorandum, Oct. 2002.)

The Law: 18 U.S.C. § 205 (2003) forbids any current Federal employee from

acting as an attorney in prosecuting a claim against the United States—where this is not

performed as part of his or her official duties for the Federal Government. For any such

violation, the law authorizes fines and possible imprisonment—of not more than one

year, unless the conduct is “willful,” in which case it can be for up to 5 years (see 18

U.S.C. § 216(a)).

Department of Justice Attorney Sentenced for Two Felony Counts A high-ranking attorney for the Department of Justice was convicted of

representing a private party before a Federal Agency in a matter in which the U.S. was a

party in interest, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 205. He was also convicted of theft of

Government property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 64l. The attorney represented Native

Americans before the Department of the Interior in private litigation, and submitted false

travel vouchers for Government reimbursement while he served as an employee of the

Department of Justice.

The attorney pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four months of home detention

and one year of probation. The plea agreement also stipulated that the attorney pay

restitution to Department of Justice in the amount of $5,000, pay a $5,000 fine, and pay

approximately $2,500 in probation costs. Section 205 prohibits Federal personnel from

representing anyone before a Federal Agency or court in connection with a particular

matter in which the United States has a direct and substantial interest.

90

Air Force Civilian Employee Improperly Represents Fellow Employees

Before U.S. Government A civilian employee of the Oklahoma City, Air Logistics Center (OC-ALC), who

was also the former OC-ALC shop steward, was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 205.

The employee, who was not an attorney, owned a private company called Associated

Labor Consultants. This company provided legal services to other OC-ALC civilian

employees by filing legal briefs on behalf of the civilian employees and by representing

them before various board hearings against the United States. The employee collected

approximately $1,050 in fees from OC-ALC civilian employees for his services, and had

billed out but had not collected an additional $1,853.

The Air Force employee was charged with a civil violation of 18 U.S.C. 205. The

case was dismissed without prejudice. On February 2, 1998, the parties entered into a

stipulated agreement in which the accused agreed to pay the United States $3,000 and to

refrain from advising, counseling, or representing persons with claims against the United

States.

FAA Employee Improperly Represents Co-worker Before Department

of Justice An engineer employed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) at the Mike

Moroney Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City was charged with violating 18 U.S.C.

205 (among other charges). While employed by the FAA, the engineer attended and

graduated from night law school. The new attorney continued his employment as an

engineer but prepared wills, powers of attorney, and other legal documents on his own

time. Without permission from the FAA, he agreed to represent a fellow FAA employee

who was the target of a criminal investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office, and

subsequently contacted the U.S. Attorney's Office on behalf of his client.

The United States brought a civil action against the FAA employee pursuant to 18

U.S.C. 205(a)(2) and 18 U.S.C. 216. The parties entered into a consent judgment in

which the FAA employee agreed to pay a $1,200 penalty.

91

Deputy Secretary of Commerce Improperly Contacts Official at

Department of Veterans Affairs The Deputy Secretary of Commerce received from his father-in-law, the owner of

a company doing business with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), a letter

complaining of delays experienced by the company in modifying its contract with the

VA. The Deputy Secretary of Commerce referred the letter to his counterpart at the VA

on behalf of his father-in-law, and also contacted the VA by telephone. As a result of the

intervention, the company received the modification it sought more quickly than it would

have, absent the action by the Deputy Secretary.

A complaint for civil penalties was filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 216(b) for a

violation of 18 U.S.C. 205. The Deputy Secretary agreed to a civil settlement, including

a $5,000 fine, which would have been the maximum fine available under the sentencing

guidelines had the case been prosecuted criminally. Section 205 prohibits Federal

personnel, other than in the proper discharge of their official duties, from acting as an

agent or attorney for another before any Federal agency or court, in connection with a

particular matter in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial

interest.

VA Employee Represents Company Before U.S.A.I.D. An architect employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was charged

with violating 18 U.S.C. 205. While employed by VA, the architect represented a

Beltsville, Maryland, company in connection with an application for a contract with the

United States Agency for International Development in Dacca, Bangladesh. The

architect made two trips to Bangladesh to represent the company while employed by the

VA, including a trip for which the company paid him $2,090. Prior to the effective date

of his resignation from the VA, the architect was paid an additional $5,603 by the

company. During this same period of dual employment, he earned $5,540 from the VA.

The architect was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 205(a)(2). He was sentenced

to two years probation, 100 hours of community service, and was required to pay a fine

of $1,000. Section 205 prohibits Federal personnel, other than in the proper discharge of

their official duties, from acting as an agent or attorney for another before any Federal

92

agency or court, in connection with a particular matter in which the United States is a

party or has a direct and substantial interest.

Misuse of Government Resources and Personnel

All Your Hotel Points Belong to Me While working at the Air Force Legal Operating Agency, an official directed Air

Force JAGs to stay at local hotels at a higher monetary rate when housing was available

on Maxwell AFB at a much lower rate. This official used his Marriott reward points to

reserve hotel rooms for visiting military personnel so that he could use his public office

for private gain and collect the mileage for himself. As a result of the scheme, the

official received a total of 587,282 Marriott reward points and an additional 100,000

reward points for other room arrangements. He pled guilty and was sentenced to pay a

$5,000 fine and $90,356 in restitution to the Government for defrauding the Air Force.

An Official U.S-Russian Party A high-level U.S. military official in charge of nuclear weapons had a real blast

on his official trip to Moscow, where he imbibed to his heart’s content, mingled with

“suspicious” foreign women he met at a bar, and topped it off by insulting his Russian

hosts. After a series of other embarrassing gaffes, higher-ups relieved the General of his

command. He has since received a letter of counseling and has been reassigned.

Always Read the Fine Print A former State Department official used her position to funnel millions in

government contracting work to her husband’s company by persuading a contracting

officer to sign the contract without looking at the fine print. How much money was at

issue — $39 million — enough for the official to buy a Lexus, a half-million dollar yacht,

and nearly a quarter-million dollars in jewelry within two years. The proceeds were

going to her company, and she kept secret that the company was owned by her and her

husband. While the contracted work was completed, the 64 year old State Department

93

official was ordered to serve two years in prison for committing fraud against the

Government.

I Wasn’t Really “Driving” Officer… An army employee decided to drive some co-workers home after a night

of drinking. Unfortunately, the driver had also taken part in the merriment and used a

government vehicle. This led to the driver running his vehicle aground on top of a

sandbar, stranding himself and his passengers. The driver offered two unidentified

individuals a ride in his government vehicle if they helped free the vehicle from the sand

pile. Before they were able to free the vehicle, police officers arrived on the scene and

arrested the driver. The Government vehicle was impounded the Federal employee was

charged with Refusal to Submit to a Chemical Test and Driving Under the Influence, and

jailed for 10 days. The employee failed to inform his supervisor about the incident

including where he was for the 10 days he was in jail.

The employee plead guilty in state court to Refusal of a Breath Test and was

subsequently removed from federal service for driving under the influence, misuse of a

government vehicle, loss of driver’s license, and attempting to deceive his supervisor.

Pointing and Shooting for Personal Gain An O-5 in communications decided that his day job wasn’t enough, so he started a

side business photographing local sports events. While on duty, he asked a subordinate

to create photo products for his personal business during official time. The officer also

requested a press pass on behalf of the Defense Media Activity, which he then used to

gain exclusive entry into sporting events to take pictures in his off-duty time. When he

was finally caught for misusing the press pass, he received a letter of concern from

command.

Hors D’oeuvres and Wine…On the Taxpayers’ Dime A member of the Senior Executive Service authorized the use of appropriated

funds for two optional, off-site “teambuilding” events: a wine tasting event and a hors

d'oeuvres tasting event. The SES member argued that these events were justified as

“necessary teambuilding” events. It turns out that the events were not so “necessary”

94

after all: no employees were actually required to attend the events, which took place off-

site. The Inspector General found that the SES had improperly authorized the use of

appropriated funds for these events, which were not necessary. She was counseled by her

superiors as a result.

A Personal Postal Service One audacious officer stationed in Afghanistan developed a love for fancy rugs

and shotguns produced in Turkey. He liked them so much, in fact, that he created his

own courier service to get extra cash from the U.S. to increase his collection. The officer,

an O-5, submitted a fraudulent courier order, which requested that an enlisted service-

member personally transport an “important package” from the U.S. to Afghanistan. The

enlisted service-member even received preferred seating on a government flight to

undertake his “special” task. When the enlisted service-member arrived in Afghanistan,

the O-5 told him that the “important package” actually contained $4,000 in cash for the

purchase of more rugs and shotguns. The O-5 needed the money to reimburse people

from whom he had borrowed funds to purchase rugs and guns, and to buy more of these

items for his family and friends.

The enlisted service-member then sat around on the base for 10 days on his

courier orders. When interviewed, he stated that he had received no assignments on base,

and spent those 10 days watching movies, eating meals, and doing no work. When the

command got wind of this misuse of funds and personnel, the O-5 was relieved of his

duties and forced to fully reimburse the government for thousands of dollars.

If the Gloves Fit, No Need to Acquit A Service NCO admitted to stealing government property while performing duties

as a security police officer at a base in the United States. The NCO was observed

removing uniform items, flight gloves, and flashlights from an unsecured supply building

while making his security rounds. On another occasion the NCO took self-inflating air

mattresses and mess kits from the same building. The guard used his police vehicle to

stash the stolen goods, before taking them home. The NCO admitted to stealing the

items, and was forced to take an early retirement.

95

It’s Five O’clock Somewhere A government employee attached to a Service base in the United States ended up

taking a permanent vacation after a pattern of working an abbreviated work week. The

investigation showed the employee worked an average of three hours a day, before

leaving around nine or ten each morning to spend the rest of the day drinking at a local

bar. The employee put in for retirement in lieu of disciplinary action

Un-Captain-like Behavior A Service Captain lost his command for abusing his position, committing larceny,

and accepting gifts. The Captain coerced the ship’s MWR committee to purchase his

personal items, for cash, to use as prizes in a command golf tournament. During port

visits, he used his position to mandate compulsory wardroom attendance to sales events

he orchestrated with specific vendors, in exchange for discounts and free merchandise for

himself. At a banquet with an ally military command, the Captain ventured into the other

military’s Admiral’s Mess and removed a pair of ceremonial salt and pepper shakers.

Back in port, he accepted a helicopter taxi service and a free round of golf from a non-

federal entity in exchange for being a guest speaker, a violation of 5 C.F.R.

2635.202/203/204 (Gifts from Outside Sources). The Captain was relieved of his

command.

“I was dozing off – not sleeping!” A Government employee was reported by his co-workers for sleeping on the job.

When confronted, he admitted that he may have dozed off a time or two, but never

actually slept at work. His three day suspension was reduced to one day after he revealed

that drowsiness was a potential side-effect of his prescribed medication.

Go Speedracer A civilian reported seeing three Government vehicles traveling at high speeds,

tailgating and weaving through traffic in a dangerous manner. When questioned, several

service members admitted to driving in excess of the speed limit, passing on the right and

driving aggressively. Two of them were given formal counseling on the proper use of

Government property and the third was given a non-punitive Letter of Instruction.

96

Government Parking The Inspector General received a report that an officer had been using a

Government vehicle parking pass to park his personal vehicle while he was at work. The

report indicated that on several occasions other employees were forced to pay for parking

a Government vehicle because the officer’s personal vehicle was using the parking pass.

The subsequent investigation revealed that the officer had been using the pass for parking

his personal vehicle, and that his superior officers had not been informed or given him

permission to do so. Although the officer advised that he only used the pass when going

to work, and did not use it when he believed a Government vehicle would need it, he

received a letter of counseling.

Government Property for Sale The Government received reports that a military reservist was attempting to sell

Government property, including military backpacks and boots, to civilian employees at a

steep discount. The reports seemed to indicate that the reservist had access to a great

selection of military equipment because he advertised that he could supply boots in any

size that his fellow employees might need. Investigation discovered more than $3,000

worth of Government property in the reservist’s home. He received verbal counseling for

his misuse of Government resources.

Personal Phone Calls A civilian employee received a letter of reprimand for her excessive use of her

Government telephones for personal calls. The employee had been warned about the

issue before, and an investigation revealed that she had spent approximately twenty-one

hours of duty time on personal telephone calls to her friends and family over a five month

span.

Employee Receives Reprimand for His Side Business A civilian employee was reported for running a side business through his office.

It turns out that the employee had developed a computer program during duty hours and

on Government equipment. He then marketed the program, and his consulting services,

via the internet. He also used his Government APO address as his business address so

97

that he would be able to handle all of his personal business at his Government office.

The employee received a letter of reprimand and was forced to stop selling the software.

Since it was developed on Government time and using Government resources the

program was deemed Government property.

Taking the Blackhawk Out for Lunch A concerned citizen contacted the Inspector General after seeing a Blackhawk

helicopter parked in a field behind a restaurant. Inside, he found five service members

that had stopped for lunch and were enjoying their meal with several civilians. An

investigation revealed that the soldiers were on a training mission, but they had properly

listed the restaurant stop in their mission plan. Since the stop was properly listed, the

soldiers had not violated any regulations, but they still received verbal counseling

because their actions created an appearance of impropriety.

Unwelcomed Whistleblowers A military service Captain denied reenlistment to a Staff Sergeant on the basis of

a protected communication. The denial was based in part on congressional inquiries the

Staff Sergeant had filed concerning actions of military officials. The denial violated

18 U.S.C. 1034, which prohibits reprisal against a military member for making a

protected communication. The Captain was issued a letter of counseling.

In a similar case, a Captain issued an adverse fitness report after an Ensign had

alleged that she had been sexually assaulted by another military service member.

The Ensign had her record corrected after whistleblower reprisal was found under

10 U.S.C. 1034.

Better Call U-Haul Instead A military service officer used two government owned vehicles to move her

belongings from one residence to another. The use of the vehicles, totaling over 250

miles, earned her a memorandum of reprimand from her commander for misuse of

government vehicles. Another officer was issued a memorandum of counseling for

improperly authorizing the use of the vehicles.

98

In a similar case, a military service Colonel authorized a subordinate to use a

military vehicle to pick him up at his residence and take him to work. He was counseled

for improperly using Federal Government resources, including personnel and equipment,

for a non-official purpose, in violation of JER 2-301, Use of Federal Government

Resources. $130 was collected from the Colonel to reimburse the government for the

mileage cost incurred.

Chiefly Wasteful A chief of maintenance and logistics at a military facility purchased, at a cost of

$30,000 each, 6 forklifts designed for inside use despite the fact that the command

needed lifts for outside use, even for use in inclement weather. The forklifts rusted for 8

months in an outdoor storage area. In an even more impressive display of waste, the

chief purchased a $400,000 patrol boat with a bad generator that left the boat inoperative

- and that went unrepaired.

The chief’s actions violated Federal Acquisition Regulation 3.101-1, which sets

forth the standard that transactions related to the expenditure of public funds require the

highest degree of public trust and an impeccable standard of conduct.

The chief was removed from his position.

On-Duty Classes Two Military Sergeants First Class were handed memorandums of admonition for

lack of good judgment for improperly using Tuition Assistance. They attended school

during on-duty time when they should normally have performed their military duties.

Their civilian supervisor was also given a memorandum of admonition for

improperly allowing the soldiers to take such time.

Significant Penalties for Significant Wrongdoing A former employee at the NASA Ames Research Center, Christopher Burt

Wiltsee, was sentenced to five years in prison and ordered to pay a $25,000 fine after

pleading guilty to possessing child pornography on his government computer. Wiltsee

admitted to possessing more than 600 images.

99

He is at least the third person connected with NASA Ames to be convicted of

possessing child pornography. Another former NASA employee, Mark Charles Zelinsky,

likewise pled guilty to possessing more than 600 images on his government computer.

Zelinsky received three years in prison.

Save Your Job; Pay with (Your Own) Cash A former manager at the U.S. Postal Service was removed from his position for,

among other things, improperly using his government credit card and making false

statements during the investigation regarding that use. William Hickmon was found to

have made personal purchases on his Postal Service travel credit card that totaled over

$450. The charges included five gas station charges and an 11-day car rental charge.

Though he eventually paid the charges, the improper use was a factor in his eventual

removal.

Colonel Finds It’s Too Late to Turn Back Time on Unethical Request An Army Colonel was scheduled to go TDY and asked one of her contract

employees to make a reservation for her mother on the same flight. When she was told

that such action would be illegal, she responded that it was “alright” and that she had

asked him as a “personal favor.” After even more people counseled her on the illegality

of her actions, the Colonel attempted to stop the employee from making the flight

reservation, but it was too late. She was found to have violated Paragraphs 2-301 and 3-

305 of DoD 5500.7-R, Joint Ethics Regulation, which prohibit use of Federal

Government resources, including personnel and equipment, for other than official

purposes.

Cyber-Savvy Teacher Learns a Lesson A civilian teacher employed with DoD in Japan was caught using his Government

computer to send frequent messages on MySpace, Yahoo Chat, and MSN chat during

duty hours. He also used the computer to both view and send pornographic material.

Students reported that instead of teaching classes he spent most of his time chatting with

his girlfriend and family in the United States. Adverse Personnel Action was taken

against the teacher and he resigned.

100

Majorly Out To Lunch An Army Major was scheduled to work 0730 to 1600 hours. Instead, he would

show up as late as 1030 and leave as early as 1200. Somehow, during his short stay at

the office he also managed to take “excessive lunch time.” He was subjected to

counseling for his time and attendance violations.

Prognosis for Army Doctor Does Not Look Good A civilian doctor working at an Army clinic was caught ordering medication and

tests for herself at the clinic even though she was not entitled to medical care by the

military. She had also been seen by occupational health providers at the clinic about 20

times. This doctor receiving unauthorized medical care was suspended for two weeks

without pay and retrained on her eligibility to receive medical services.

At Today’s Gas Prices, Better Refill the Government’s Tank! A group of interns used a Government rental vehicle to attend a 5-day Defense

Acquisition University (DAU) class in Alabama. However, after the class was over they

decided to drive to Nashville for a little weekend vacation, ultimately dropping the car off

with an empty tank of gas. They charged the Government an extra two days for the

weekend car rental and the $5/gallon gas refill. They were also improperly paid for an

extra day of per diem during their boondoggle to Music City. The original vouchers

claimed days that were not part of the interns’ official TDY, but were subsequently

corrected. The intern group was counseled, received training on filing travel vouchers,

and was made to contact DFAS regarding reimbursement to the Government for the

improper expenditures.

A Swing and a Miss for Senior Officers Using Government Funds on

Golf Outing Four senior officials, including two Air Force Generals, a Marine General, and a

Navy Admiral, with staff personnel extended their official TDY by an extra day in order

to attend a golf outing following a formal conference in Tokyo. They utilized

Government transportation and received per diem for the tournament. There were no

business events that day, and the all-day golf event was attended by less than half of the

101

conference participants. Attendance at the golf event, costing the Government

approximately an additional $3,000, could not reasonably be considered to be official

Government business. Golf foursomes do not provide the opportunity to dialogue with a

large or diverse group of people and thus do not greatly foster communication between

conference participants. The Federal Joint Travel Regulations require that official travel

only be authorized as necessary “to accomplish the mission of the Government

effectively and economically.” The golf did not further any legitimate Government

purpose, nor was it an economical choice. The senior officials violated the Standards of

Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 C.F.R. Part 2635.704 and

2635.705) by misusing Government property and time. They were directed to reimburse

the Government for both the lodging and per diem costs incurred due to the golf outing.

Not a Liar, But the Army Still Can’t Train Your Fiancée’s Son to Fight

Fire The Fire Chief at an army installation did not have enough students to fill a pre-

paid, DoD-funded Airfield Rescue Fire Fighter Class so he sent his fiancée’s son to the

training to fill one of the unused seats. Although he was not a DoD employee and did not

possess any previous firefighter training or experience, he was issued Depot firefighting

equipment and sent to the training. This action posed a considerable safety risk to all

involved and violated the class’s safety requirements. The Fire Chief was not suspected

of fraud, only poor judgment. Even though sending the boy did not involve the

expenditure of additional funds, he still violated Paragraph 2-301 of DoD 5500.7-R, the

Joint Ethics Regulation, paragraph 2-301, in his misuse of Government resources by

issuing the boy the Government equipment. The Fire Chief was issued a written

reprimand to be made a matter of record in his official personnel folder for a period not to

exceed two years from the date of receipt.

Staff Sergeant Tricks Out His Ride on the Government’s Dime An Army E-6 assigned to a National Guard maintenance shop improperly worked

on civilian vehicles at the shop and removed car parts for his personal use. He installed

truck tires, two solargizers and other accessories on his personal vehicle and used his

Government credit card to buy a diamond plate fuel tank and install it in his own truck

102

while putting a regular white fuel tank in the military truck he was working on. The Staff

Sergeant not only took a Government vehicle for his personal use, but he even took a

shed from the shop and moved it to his home. He was also suspected of using his

Government credit card to pay for gas for his personal vehicles. The Staff Sergeant was

charged with larceny and wrongful appropriation under the Code of Military Justice and

the Government was able to recover $8,800 in property.

Misuse of Position A Major General and commander in a military service abused his authority by

arranging to have an enlisted member serve as his unauthorized enlisted aide. Years

earlier, a review of enlisted aide positions eliminated the billet at his center. Despite this,

the Major General desired the services of an enlisted aide to assist in official entertaining

and improperly assigned enlisted aide duties to a non-commissioned officer. The Major

General was issued a letter of counseling.

Law Enforcement Official Fired for Landing Government Helicopter at

His Daughter’s School A Department of Homeland Security border officer was fired for misuse of

government property after he flew a multi-million dollar DHS helicopter to his daughter’s

elementary school and landed it on school property. The incident provoked complaints

from parents and attracted media attention. Although the employee’s immediate

supervisor told him he could use the helicopter, the employee’s actions were not excused

because employees are expected to use their own judgment and should not rely solely on

the judgment of their superiors when it comes to ethical conduct.

29-Year Veteran of the VA Loses Job Over Dirty Emails A Department of Veterans Affairs budget analyst (GS-11) was terminated for the

inappropriate use of a government computer system. The employee sent and received at

least 119 e-mail messages containing sexually explicit material. The employee had been

instructed in the proper use of government computers and signed a statement that he was

aware of the agency’s policies, which were clearly violated by the contents of his e-mail

103

messages. The employee’s claims that someone else got onto his computer and sent and

received the e-mails were unavailing.

Don’t Lose Your Day Job A Treasury Department computer specialist used government Internet and

telephone service to operate a private business during work hours for several years. The

agency estimated that he stole over $63,000 in salary by running his private business on

government time. After he was issued a cease and desist order, he discontinued most of

his private business activity, but he admitted to continuing to use his work computer to

transfer files relating to his private business. He argued that this was allowed by the

Department because employees are permitted de minimis (very limited) personal use of

government property. The Department disagreed. Although Department employees may

use government property for personal purposes at a de minimis level, they may not use

government property at all to pursue private commercial business activities or profit-

making ventures. This employee had been warned once and continued to use the

government’s office equipment for his private business. Thus, this employee was left

with only his night job (which he could now legitimately do during the day).

HUD Employee Discloses Non-Public Information to Lover for Personal

Financial Gain A HUD employee gave her spouse-like partner information about the minimum

acceptable bid required to purchase a HUD-owned property. This information was non-

public and gave the employee’s partner a significant advantage over other bidders in

getting the winning bid. After the her partner won the bid and purchased the property,

the property was transferred to the employee for $1—an obvious straw-man transaction

used to get around a HUD regulation prohibiting HUD employees from bidding on HUD-

owned properties. Federal regulations prohibit employees from using non-public

information for furthering their own private financial interests, or the private financial

interests of others. The HUD employee was fired.

104

Block Party for New Staff Members Not a “Hail and Farewell” A Colonel in Wurzburg, Germany drew the attention of investigators after they

discovered that he had used Government resources to host an unofficial barbeque at his

quarters. The Colonel had planned a block party to welcome new staff members to his

division, and accepted an offer by a superior officer to use Government property and

soldiers for the party. He subsequently tasked soldiers from his command during duty

hours to purchase food and beverages (with his own private funds) as well as transport

and set up a Government tent and Government-purchased tables and benches at his

quarters. The soldiers used Government vehicles to transport the party supplies, and

returned to break down the tent and tables at the close of the party. While the Colonel

protested that the event was a Hail and Farewell, the event was advertised to the

community as a Block Party, attendance was voluntary, and the event was not considered

a place of duty. Thus, investigators determined that the event was unofficial, and resulted

in the misuse of government resources.

Personal Use of Government Property Earns Reprimand The Assistant Fire Chief at a military installation in California received a letter of

reprimand after investigators discovered that he had improperly authorized a firefighter to

take home a rarely-used fire station pool table for personal use. The Assistant Chief had

been instructed to determine whether the pool table was actually Government property

before gifting it to the firefighter, but had neglected to do so. Taking a “cue” from the

Chief’s admission to investigators, the firefighter returned the pool table to the station

and received counseling.

Admiral Under Investigation for Use of Staff to Support Personal

Travel An Admiral’s case was referred to the Chief of Naval Operations after

investigators learned that he had used his personal staff to book family travel and give

him rides home from work. Investigators discovered that the Admiral’s Executive

Assistant, Aide, and Flag Writer had on multiple occasions acceded to the Admiral’s

requests to help plan and book family vacations. The Admiral’s staff had also booked

personal travel for the Admiral’s family members to join him on official business.

105

Investigators further found that the Admiral had improperly driven home his Government

vehicle on several occasions, and that the staff had developed a custom that the last

person to leave the office on a day on which the Admiral lacked transportation was

virtually obligated to give the Admiral a ride home in their personal vehicle.

The Admiral’s case was referred to the Chief of Naval Operations for misuse of

personnel, misuse of Government property, and receipt of gifts from subordinates.

Stopping at the Base Eatery Not an “Official Visit” A Non-Appropriated Fund Activity (NAFI) employee was reprimanded after it

was discovered that he drove his official Government vehicle every morning to a NAFI

eatery for coffee and breakfast. The employee readily admitted his actions, but indicated

that he believed them to be proper because they were “official visits” to an activity under

his command. He noted that he had formerly used his personal vehicle for all such visits,

but with rising gas prices, that practice had become too expensive. He further

hypothesized that the person who had tipped off investigators was simply jealous as they

probably did not have a Government vehicle and were forced to drive their personal

vehicle to get food.

The employee received a written reprimand for using a Government vehicle for

non-authorized purposes.

Misuse of Culinary Specialists Results in Attention of Chief of Naval

Operation An Admiral and Captain at a Naval Facility in Japan came under investigation

when it was discovered that they were using Culinary Specialists (CSs) to operate an

unauthorized Flag Mess. The two officers ordered the establishment of an on-shore Flag

Mess to serve them without following the proper procedures to receive approval. While

they provided the funds for the CSs to purchase the food for the mess, they required that

the CSs prepare meals and serve them in their respective offices. The CSs were also

directed to prepare food for an unofficial social event given by the Admiral in his

quarters. As a result of their misuse of personnel, the officers’ cases were forwarded to

the Chief of Naval Operations.

106

Failure to Choose Cost-Efficient Flights Results in Investigation An Army National Guard Colonel found himself under investigation after the

revelation that he had committed waste and abuse in official travel. Investigators

discovered that over a three-year span of time, the Colonel had traveled on twelve flights

in business class, adding approximately $6,800 to the flight cost; had taken nineteen trips

with non-contract carriers; had on six occasions flown routes terminating in destinations

not in his orders, such as San Francisco; and had requested that his staff book him on a

certain chain of carriers whenever possible in order to earn frequent flyer miles.

Investigators determined that the failure of the Colonel and his staff to follow the proper

procedures concerning travel cost comparisons cost nearly $5,000 in 2005 alone.

Trashing Unused Parts Garners Employee Counseling A Sergeant in the Air Refueling Wing of the Arizona National Guard had the

responsibility of properly cataloging excess aircraft parts. This process involved filling

out the requisite paperwork and boxing loose items. The Sergeant swiftly became

frustrated with the process, and decided to simply throw the items away.

The Sergeant’s shortcut earned him counseling and a division-wide review of

proper maintenance procedures.

Email Encouraging Attendance at Military Association Meeting Earns

Counseling Two senior officials of the Louisiana National Guard were counseled after

sending an email to a large number of sergeant majors in the command asking them to

“focus on” the upcoming convention of the Louisiana Army National Guard Enlisted

Association, noting that they “expect[ed]” attendance at certain sessions, and expressing

their desire for “a good turnout.” The email was in violation of DoD Directive 5500.7R,

which prohibits official endorsement of non-Federal organizations. The two officers

were counseled for their violations.

107

Don’t Let Internet Surfing Carry You Away! The Facts: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a policy that allowed the

use of the Internet by employees for personal reasons so long as that use did not distract

employees from their duties. It also provided a list of Internet sites that were off-limits.

Six months later, the Treasury Inspector General (IG) for Tax Administration found

widespread abuse of Internet privileges. Abuses included viewing pornographic sites,

downloading music and games, and “chatting” online with friends. The IG recommended

that the IRS require employees to sign a document declaring that they understood IRS

Internet policy and, as GovExec.com put it, “humiliate Internet abusers by publishing

their names.” The IRS has determined that it will take stronger measures. (Source:

GovExec.com, June 23, 2003.)

The Law: Different agencies may have different policies as to what use

employees can make of the Internet while at work. As an employee, you must follow the

policies of your employer or face disciplinary action. Moral: Check the tide in your

office before you surf.

Using Government Vehicle to “Chill” Earns Down Time By Suspension The Facts: A resident of California was puzzled to find a Dodge Ram truck

owned by a branch of the United States military often turning up in a residential

neighborhood during business hours. Concerned at this use of a Government-owned

vehicle (GOV), the citizen decided to give a Defense Department Hotline a call. An

investigation ensued, which involved surveillance of the neighborhood in question,

review of timekeeping records, and interviews. Ultimately, the driver of the vehicle—a

mechanic at a military facility—admitted to having problems with substance abuse and

depression and to using the truck at times to return home allegedly to retrieve tools

(which could have been obtained by other means) and to “chill out,” sometimes for two

hours. He admitted that he knew that what he was doing with the GOV was wrong, but

he asked for a second chance since he had never been in trouble before. The mechanic

was given the mandatory minimum penalty: a 30-day suspension.

The Law: 31 U.S.C. § 1349(b) requires that an officer or employee who

“willfully” uses a vehicle owned or leased by the United States Government for other

than official purposes be suspended for at least one month or, “when circumstances

108

warrant, for a longer period or summarily removed from office.” In this case, the misuse

of the vehicle was deemed to be willful, since the Federal employee knew that his

personal use of the GOV was wrong.

Holiday Greetings! Military Officer Sent Best Wishes on the Cheap —

You Paid! The Facts: According to sworn testimony and documents uncovered by a military

service Inspector General inquiry, a senior military officer and his wife had a subordinate

service member print out on a Government office computer official cards containing their

holiday greetings, which they then signed, enclosed in official envelopes with printed

labels, and sent to about 100 addresses. Some of their greetings were sent overseas to

foreign officials using Government postage and marked “Official Business.” This

conduct occurred as one of a series of alleged offenses that resulted in the officer being

relieved of command, issued a punitive letter of reprimand, and ordered to forfeit $1,000.

The Law: 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101 (2003), which lays out basic obligations for and

restrictions upon public service, forbids the use of Federal property “for other than

authorized activities” (§ 2635.101(b)(9)). It thus barred the use of all of the Federal

property employed to produce and to send the greeting cards. Moreover, 18 U.S.C.

§ 1719 (2003) mandates fines for anyone using an official envelope or label to avoid

having to pay their own postage for private mail. In this case, the official envelopes

addressed to individuals overseas were improperly used to gain Government postage.

Admittedly, section C1.4.9 of the Department of Defense (DoD) Official Mail Manual

(DoD 4525.8-M, Dec. 26, 2001) authorizes the use of “appropriated fund postage” by

DoD “activities . . . when international diplomacy dictates.” In this case, however, the

officer’s greetings were not required for international diplomacy and were not sent on

behalf of an “activity” but were from two individuals—the officer and his wife. They

thus did not fall within the DoD exception.

"What do you mean, I can't sell real estate at work?!" A Federal employee, who had a second career as a realtor, printed her Federal

Agency phone number on her realtor business card. When she answered her phone at her

Government workplace, she announced her office as "J&B Real Estate." When advised

109

that she could not use her Government office for her commercial business, she left

Federal service. The record is silent regarding how much of her duty day was actually

spent on Government work.

Sections 5 C.F.R. 2635.704 and 705 of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for

Employees of the Executive Branch bar the use of Government property and resources, as

well as official time, for unauthorized activities (such as conducting a private business

venture).

"What do you mean, this isn't my property?!" One entrepreneurial Federal employee backed his panel van up to the office door

one night and stole all the computer equipment. He wasn't too hard to catch: he tried to

sell everything at a yard sale the next day — with barcodes and "Property of US

Government" stickers still prominently displayed.

Misuse of Government Resources Allegations were made that the principal of a Department of Defense school was

using the school to hold personal, for-profit craft parties after hours. After an

investigation, it was determined that the principal did improperly use Government

property. It was discovered that the parties’ original location, which had been on private

property, was no longer available, so the principal moved the parties to the school.

Section 2635.704 of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the

Executive Branch restricts the use of Government property, including DoD school

buildings, for authorized purposes only.

Improper Use of Government Resources Allegations were raised that a Navy civilian official was using his Navy office as

a headquarters for his private company. It was alleged that he used and published his

Navy office phone number as the business’s number and used Navy employees to answer

the phone and take messages regarding the business for him. It was also alleged that he

used Government copiers, fax machines, and other equipment for the business. After an

investigation, all of the allegations were substantiated. The official was reduced in grade

and removed from his supervisory post.

110

Section 2635.704 of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the

Executive Branch restricts the use of Government property, including office equipment

and supplies, for authorized purposes only.

Misuse of Email A Department of Defense (DoD) employee inadvertently received an email

message from another employee, whom she didn’t know. The message went into great

detail regarding a private business venture that the employee was conducting with a third

employee. The recipient promptly forwarded the email to Inspector General, who

investigated and determined that the writer of the message was using the Government

email system for his own private business use. The employee was warned, but continued

his activities even after counseling, and was subsequently removed from his position.

Paragraph 2-301a of DoD 5500.07-R, Joint Ethics Regulation, restricts use of

Department of Defense communications systems to official and authorized purposes

only. Supervisors may allow limited personal use of DoD email systems under certain

circumstances and when such use does not overburden the communications system,

create significant additional costs, and is of reasonable duration and frequency.

Misuse of Government Telephone A Department of Defense civilian employee earned the ire of her co-workers by

using her office telephone for personal calls. An investigation determined that the

employee had indeed been abusing her telephone privileges — for nearly 90 hours in one

calendar year alone. She was ordered to pay for the improper calls but was not

prosecuted for the over two workweeks worth of time she spent on the phone during

work hours. She was issued a letter of caution by her supervisor.

"And they even pay me for doing this." The Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed the decision by the Drug

Enforcement Agency (DEA) to remove a criminal investigator for willful misuse of a

Government vehicle. The former official was engaged in a social and sexual relationship

with a confidential source of information, who was also the wife of a convicted drug

trafficker. The former official received daily gifts from the confidential source. He used

111

his official Government vehicle to travel to the residence of the confidential source, and

to transport her from her residence to the Miami airport and to the Café Iguana for purely

social reasons. He even gave her some DEA-owned ammunition for use in her own gun.

"Sorry, Skipper, but those really aren't perks." Immediately upon arriving at his new duty station in Italy, the new commanding

officer of the Navy facility, in an effort to save money, used an official vehicle rather

than obtaining a rental car, which he was authorized to do while awaiting delivery of his

personal vehicle. His use of the official vehicle was discovered when the car was stolen

when he was at a restaurant. The subsequent investigation also revealed that he had used

an official boat (called a barge) to ferry himself and his social group to the island of

Ischia for a social evening (a commercial ferry would have cost the total party less than

$20). The investigation also revealed that he had tried to persuade the commanding

officer of a subordinate organization to create a GS-14 position for his spouse. The

officer was relieved of his command and returned stateside.

Improper Phone Calls and Attempted Cover-up A General Services Administration (GSA) employee was removed from his

position for making 153 non-business calls on a Government telephone to the Texas

Lottery Commission. The calls cost the GSA $800. The employee also asked the

recipient of the calls to provide false information about the calls by stating that they

concerned official Government business. The employee was removed from Federal

Service.

Misuse of Government Vehicle A Department of Transportation canine enforcement team leader was removed

from his position for misuse of a Government vehicle as well as for a serious lack of

judgment regarding the safeguarding of over $2 million worth of cocaine. The cocaine

was used in training sessions for canine enforcement teams. The former employee

improperly took his Government vehicle to lunch and left the cocaine unattended —

all in a border town where narcotics trafficking was a problem. The charges and the

112

removal decision were all appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The removal

was upheld.

How NOT to Get Rich Stealing Office Supplies A Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) review found that a VA employee was

unlawfully removing Government office supplies and equipment from the VA warehouse

and providing them to his brother-in-law, who worked for a local retail establishment.

Management took administrative action against the employee.

Misuse of Government Letterhead and Postage-Paid Envelope The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determined that a VA medical center

employee used official VA letterhead as well as a postage-paid envelope to send personal

correspondence to a county judge requesting issuance of a protective order against a then-

fellow VA employee. The employee was issued a written letter of counseling and

advised that future incidents may result in disciplinary action.

Don’t Misuse Government Vehicles — Even to Help Your Family! The Facts: The son and nephew of a high-level Federal employee were having

car problems and needed lunch. With what may have been good intentions, this high-

level employee decided to use a Government vehicle to help. He damaged the vehicle,

and his act was discovered. His reward for helping his family with a Government

vehicle: suspension without pay for 45 days and reassignment to a new position.

(Source: Donald Bucknor v. U.S. Postal Service, NY-0752-01-0027-I-2, Jan. 24, 2003.)

The Law: 31 U.S.C. § 1349 (2003) requires that any Federal officer or employee

who “willfully uses or authorizes the use of a passenger motor vehicle or aircraft owned

or leased by the United States Government,” except for official purposes, be suspended

without pay for a minimum of one month and, “when circumstances warrant, for a longer

period” or be “summarily removed from office.” Moreover, in Brown v. United States

Postal Service, 64 M.S.P.R. 425, 433 (1994), the Merit Systems Protection Board

affirmed that supervisors could be held to higher standards of conduct than non-

supervisors, because supervisors occupy positions of greater trust and responsibility.

113

Misuse of Property Causes Admiral to Lose Promotion A links-loving Vice Admiral let his love of the game go too far. According to the

Inspector General, the Vice Admiral misused Government property, subordinates, and

official time to sponsor a private golf tournament—a golf tournament that he advertised

as an official event. Tournament participants were rewarded with gifts improperly

solicited and accepted by the Vice Admiral from contractors. This led the Secretary of

the Navy to withdraw the Vice Admiral’s nomination for a fourth star and issue him a

letter of instruction and caution.

The Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch limit

the use of Government property to authorized purposes only, and official time is limited

to the performance of official duties. These regulations also prohibit the solicitation or

acceptance of gifts from prohibited sources. The lesson: don’t let your activities as a

“fore” star keep you from becoming a four-star.

Misuse of Official Mail Leads to Removal A GS-11 Administrative Services Specialist was removed for falsifying

documents and misusing Government property and official mail. The specialist’s

supervisor had prepared a letter in his personal capacity expressing his disagreement with

judicial actions to free the individual charged with shooting and killing his son; this letter

was mailed to individuals in the law enforcement community in nongovernment

envelopes with privately-paid postage. The specialist took the letter prepared by her

supervisor, placed it on Department of Justice stationary, copied the supervisor’s

signature onto the letter, and sent it out in franked agency envelopes directed to members

of the judicial community, the Federal Public Defender’s Office, and a law school dean,

all without the supervisor’s knowledge or consent. The removed employee initially

denied having taken such actions under oath, but later admitted that the allegations were

true.

As a consequence of the specialist’s falsification of documents, misuse of

Government property, and abuse of official mail, she was removed from her position and

recommended for possible criminal charges.

114

Use of Government Property for Private Business Leads to Removal After repeated warnings, a Department of the Treasury computer specialist was

removed from his position for unauthorized use of Government property in support of his

private business. The employee had used his Government computer to copy his

commercial business computer files from one floppy disk to another floppy disk, and

computer records showed extensive activity related to the employee’s comic book

business. A subsequent investigation showed that the employee had falsified his

timesheet so that it did not reflect time he had spent running his private business during

work hours, leading to an extra $63,000 in payment for work the employee did not

actually perform.

Many agencies allow limited personal use of Government property when the use

involves minimal additional expense to the Government and does not overburden any of

the agency’s information resources. Nevertheless, employees are specifically prohibited

from the pursuit of private commercial business activities or profit-making ventures using

the Government’s office equipment.

Misuse of Government Property Results in Removal A GS-5 employee of the Department of the Interior was removed for misuse of

Government property, failure to follow a supervisor’s instructions, and misrepresentation

of facts on official documents. Investigations revealed that the employee made 1,609

unofficial calls on his Government-issued cell phone at a cost of $752.08, and used his

assigned laptop computer to access unauthorized sites. The employee further failed to

follow a supervisor’s instructions when he charged meals on his Government credit card

and used a Government vehicle after receiving instruction to the contrary. Lastly, the

employee misrepresented facts on official documents when he submitted a travel

document requesting reimbursement for a day when he had not actually been on official

travel, and falsely claiming to have held the designation of Agency Representative on

three occasions.

The Administrative Judge concluded that the employee’s conduct was

intentional and that he showed minimal, if any, potential for rehabilitation.

Consequently, the employee was removed and banned from seeking Federal employment

in the future.

115

Misuse of Official Vehicle Earns Employee 30-Day Suspension A U.S. Postal Service employee who used a Government-owned law enforcement

vehicle to shop for a personal computer found himself defending his actions before an

appellate court judge. The employee argued that the use was “official use” because he

sometimes used his personal computer for business purposes; however, the employee

admitted to owning a backup computer in addition to the broken one he was shopping to

replace, and failed to explain why he could not shop for a computer while off-duty. The

judge was likewise unconvinced by the employee’s claim that the use was “official”

because he could respond to emergencies while shopping.

The judge affirmed the Postal Service’s suspension of the employee for thirty

days without pay.

Misuse of Official Vehicle, Again A High Voltage Electrician at the Naval Base in Point Magu was penalized for

willful misuse of a government vehicle when he reported to work, checked out a vehicle,

and drove to the galley for breakfast. The employee argued that he had never received

notification of the restriction against driving government vehicles to meals, a claim

somewhat undercut by the fact that he had signed a document the previous month

indicating his receipt of the rules regarding misuse of government vehicles. The

employee also argued that he was on call for emergencies while eating breakfast, and

thus his use was “official.” An appellate court judge rejected this claim, finding no

evidence that his position as a High Voltage Electrician required him to be “on call

constantly” as described.

The judge affirmed the electrician’s thirty-day suspension without pay.

Misuse of a Government Vehicle and Weapon Leads to Removal A series of egregious judgment calls by a criminal investigator for the Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) made for eight hours that ended his

federal career. The investigator’s bad day began when he decided to leave while on duty

in order to show a rental house he owned to a prospective tenant, a bad idea made even

worse by his decision to drive his official vehicle. Upon arriving at the house, the

investigator found an intruder, at which point he decided to draw his service weapon and

116

chase the intruder out, firing a shot in the process. The investigator called the police to

report the break-in, and upon searching the premises, the police turned up a second

intruder hiding in a closet (presumably petrified in terror). However, somehow absent in

the investigator’s recitation of the original incident was the shot fired at the fleeing

intruder, and the police quickly departed to take the second intruder to jail. Apparently

nonplussed at the afternoon’s events, the investigator next decided to drive across town

(still in his official vehicle) to meet yet another prospective tenant. At this point the

police officers learned about the gunshot from the second intruder, and requested the

investigator’s presence at the police station.

The investigator was charged with (1) mishandling of a service weapon, (2)

failure to report discharge of a service weapon, (3) misuse of a government vehicle, and

(4) lack of candor. Needless to say, that fateful day was the investigator’s last in federal

service.

Misuse of Government Credentials Results in Demotion A Supervisory Special Agent, GS-14, found herself demoted to Special Agent,

GS-13, after misusing her government credentials in a traffic stop. The agent was riding

as a passenger with a friend when the car was pulled over by the police. Although the

police officer did not request that the agent identify herself, she immediately displayed

her federal credentials when the officer approached. Although the agent never requested

special treatment from the officer, the Administrative Judge noted that “mere self-

identification by a law officer can result in favorable treatment by another law

enforcement officer,” and for this reason agents are trained to be careful not to use their

credentials for personal gain. The agent was also separately cited for improperly securing

her government-issued weapon, which she stored at home “behind the coffee mugs on the

refrigerator” because she had “forgot[ten] the combination” to her gun safe.

In addition to her demotion, the agent was also suspended for 14 days.

(Source: 2005 MSPB LEXIS 1812)

117

Employee Removed for Misuse of Government Computer The Installation Strategic Planning Officer at Fort Steward was relieved of his

duties after it was discovered that he had been using his government laptop to both view

sexually-explicit materials and type up notes for his church. The officer will have plenty

of time to ponder his actions, as the Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed his removal

from federal service.

Lavish Agency Party Earns Federal Probe On the eve of its two-year anniversary, the Transportation Security

Administration (TSA) spent nearly a half-million dollars on an awards ceremony at a

luxurious Washington, D.C. hotel. The lavish celebration had over a thousand attendees

and was held at the Grand Hyatt, which bills itself as “one of the most magnificent”

hotels in Washington, D.C. The ceremony included finger food averaging $33 per

person, seven cakes totaling $1,850, and three cheese displays worth $1,500. TSA

planners paid an event planning company $81,767 for plaques, which they presented to

543 employees and 30 organizations. Planners also spent $1,486 on three balloon arches,

$1,509 for signs, and $5,196 for official photographs.

In honor of this over-the-top celebration, TSA was awarded an investigation by

the Homeland Security Department’s Inspector General.

(Source: Associated Press, 10/14/2004)

Certifying Officer Personally Liable for Unauthorized Staff “Sunset

Cruise” When reviewing the expense report for a week-long staff retreat, the Veterans

Administration (VA) Inspector General noted an interesting charge. Included in the

$21,000 bill for the 20-person Florida retreat was an $823 charge for a “sunset dinner

cruise.” Determining that this item was an “entertainment expense,” and noting that the

VA’s appropriation does not authorize funds for entertainment expenses, the Inspector

General recommended that the office director be held personally liable for the improper

payment. Upon review, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the

“certifying officer” is indeed personally financially liable for improperly certified

payments; however, the GAO ruled that the office director was merely an approving

118

official. The GAO ruled that the funds should be collected either from the payee, if

possible, or from the certifying officer who actually certified the payment.

Agency Director Suspended for Personal Use of Government Property A Director of a Defense agency knew of a spare room in an agency warehouse

and thought it would be the perfect place to install a bowling lane for a little recreation.

However, the employee he recruited to install the bowling alley declined, since he was

aware that employees are prohibited from using Government property for unofficial

purposes. (5 C.F.R. 2635.704 ) Undeterred, the Director went to the employee’s

supervisor and instructed him to issue the order. Reluctantly, the employee obeyed his

supervisor and constructed the bowling lane during his official work hours. Perhaps

encouraged by his success, the Director secretly constructed another lane.

The Director violated 5 C.F.R. 2635.705(b) by appropriating Government

property and space for his own personal use, as well as wrongfully depriving the

Government of resources during the time the employee built and removed the lane. This

regulation prohibits personnel from “encouraging, directing, coercing, or requesting a

subordinate to use official time to perform activities other than those required in the

performance of official duties or authorized in accordance with law or regulation.” For

this violation, the Director received a suspension.

On a side note, the employee’s supervisor as well as the Deputy

Director/Accounting Director both received letters of admonishment for failing to report

fraud, despite the fact that each had warned the Director and even attempted to stop him.

As such, it is important to remember that personnel are accountable not just for the

actions they take, but also for those actions they fail to take.

(Source: Department of Defense, Inspector General, 2007)

Senior Officer Misused Staff “for the Government’s Benefit” The Department of Defense Inspector General found that a former high ranking

military officer had exhibited a “disregard for the proper use of his staff and for

conserving Government resources” when he had his subordinates perform personal

services for him during official work hours on many occasions. Violating 5 C.F.R.

2635.702 and 2635.705(b), these offenses include having his subordinates tow his

119

personal boat after business hours and deliver individual family members’ income tax

returns to a tax assistance office. The officer asked his secretary to research nursing

homes for his mother-in-law, arrange personal travel for his wife, and coordinate his

weekend golf outings.

The officer also often requested members of his staff handle other various tasks,

such as picking up medical prescriptions, laundry, and his lunch. Further, he traveled to a

conference a day early in order to play golf with other conference participants as part of

his official duties. Section 2635.705 states, “An employee shall use official time in an

honest effort to perform official duties.”

When asked to explain his actions, the officer declared “unequivocally that at no

time did I knowingly violate” any of the standards of conduct. The officer argued that

dispensing with these tasks freed him to devote more time to his official duties, and

therefore, “the true beneficiary was the U.S. Government.” However, the officer’s

superior disagreed that the golf outing was official duty and ordered the officer to

undergo counseling. The officer also had to reimburse the agency for the lodging and per

diem costs incurred for the golf outing.

(Source: Department of Defense, Inspector General, 2007)

Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) Issues

Men Seeking Fines, Extra Duty, and Loss of Rank A Military investigators discovered ads seeking sex that were posted by seventeen

military and civilian personnel while deployed to Afghanistan. Among the perpetrators

were enlisted, officers, and a non-American. The ads included men seeking women and

men seeking men. The ads, determined to be prejudicial to good order and discipline,

warranted fines, extra duty, restriction of privileges, and possible loss of rank. The non-

American was ordered to leave the country.

120

The Ultimate Deceit A military officer was reprimanded for faking his own death to end an affair.

Worthy of a plot in a daytime soap-opera, a Navy Commander began seeing a woman

that he had met on a dating website. The Commander neglected to tell the woman that he

was married with kids. After 6 months, the Commander grew tired of the relationship

and attempted to end it by sending a fictitious e-mail to his lover – informing her that he

had been killed. The Commander then relocated to Connecticut to start a new

assignment. Upon receipt of the letter, his mistress showed up at the Commander’s house

to pay her respects, only to be informed, by the new owners, of the Commander’s

reassignment and new location. The Commander received a punitive letter of reprimand,

and lost his submarine command.

Misuse of Government Personnel Pentagon investigators found that the three star Army general in charge of the

U.S. Military Academy at West Point misused his office by having subordinates perform

personal tasks. The General made staffers work at private dinners and charity events,

provide free driving lessons, and feed a friend’s cat. The General gave each of the

staffers $30 and $40 Starbucks gifts cards in exchange for 18 hours of work. In response

to the findings, the General paid his staffers $1,815 because the work performed was not

for an “official function.” In addition to paying the staffers, the General received a

written memorandum of concern.

Serving at Volleyball Tournament Was Not Permitted A Marine Corps Commanding Officer, directed or requested that his subordinates

use their official duty time to perform manual labor and other activities in support of a

private organization - in an attempt to fundraise for the upcoming Marine Corps Ball.

They performed the work in exchange for money and command endorsement from the

organization. They ultimately received $48,600 in compensation from the outside

organization for performance of their official duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §209 and

Paragraph 3-205 of DoD 5500.7-R, the Joint Ethics Regulation, which prohibits an

employee from receiving supplemental salary from a non-Federal source for the

121

performance of DoD duties. The Commanding Officer was disciplined and directed to

transfer all the money to the U.S. Treasury.

Re-sale of MWR Products Allegations were brought against a Naval base’s Morale, Welfare, and Recreation

(MWR) Department regarding the printing and selling of T-shirts. The MWR printed T-

shirts and then sold them to military members, who then resold them at public events off-

base. A civilian businessman who owned a T-shirt business nearby complained that

MWR should not be making and selling the T-shirts that were going to be re-sold off-

base. After an investigation, it was determined that MWR was not informing the military

members about the prohibition regarding the re-sale of MWR goods and was also not

informing the military members that they could not re-sell the T-shirts, both parts of

MWR written policy. MWR began enforcing the policies and conducted training for all

of their staff.

Political Activity Violations

“I’m Uncle Sam, and I Approved this Message” An O-5 reservist running for state office decided that the usual suit, tie, and

American flag pin didn’t cut it. He took a number of photos of himself in his uniform,

including his unit designators, which he then uploaded to his campaign Web site. He also

prominently displayed his rank, position, and pictures of himself on a tour of duty in

Afghanistan. While he placed a disclaimer on his Web site stating that the DoD did not

endorse his candidacy, the disclaimer was not easily visible and was in a very small font.

He received a letter of reprimand after being forced to remove the photos.

Coming to a Mailbox Near You --- A Hatch Act Violation! An O-5 running for state office issued campaign mailers of herself in full dress

uniform, and listed her rank in the mailers. She also used her military title in campaign

e-mails. In none of these circumstances did she list a disclaimer. When the command

caught on, she admitted to the uniform violation and received a written reprimand.

122

Politics -- at Work: More than Just an Impolite Dinner Topic Two junior Service officers stationed at an overseas base violated the Hatch Act

and UCMJ articles when they sent out unsolicited political emails from their government

email accounts. The emails supported the President and lambasted other Congressmen

whose politics they didn’t agree with. The emails caught the attention of a retired

military officer, who received the messages stateside. When the retiree complained about

the officers using government email accounts for political purposes, the two officers

engaged in a scathing email back-and-forth, telling the retiree at one point, “The sooner

you and people like you die off, the better.” The officers received corrective action

within the Service including verbal counseling.

The Military Says Vote for Me! A Service reserve officer was counseled for using pictures of himself in full

uniform on campaign posters, while running for a congressional seat in Virginia.

The officer was educated on the impropriety of using his military service affiliation to

imply endorsement by a branch of the service. The posters were removed.

More than Politically Incorrect A civilian employee in a military service sent a mass email to fellow service

employees during the presidential election promoting the candidacy of John McCain and

opposing the candidacy of Barack Obama. The email summarized a story Senator

McCain told about the importance of the Pledge of Allegiance to himself and fellow

POWs during his captivity and went on to refer to Obama as a “clown, who refuses to

place his hand on his heart and say the pledge.” Included in the email was a picture of

Senator Obama with other politicians in which only Obama did not have his hand on his

heart. The email concluded by saying, “Let’s all remember this picture on election day.”

Apparently concerned not to leave anybody out, the employee compiled a “to

line” of addressees totaling 19 pages. The employee’s actions violated 5 U.S.C. 7324,

which prohibits political activity while an employee is on duty. For his actions, the

employee received a letter of reprimand.

123

Sexually Explicit Emails Are Not the Only Emails That Can Get You

Fired! Two federal employees, one at the Environmental Protection Agency, the other at

the Social Security Administration, were disciplined for violations of the Hatch Act.

Although federal employees are entitled to support the political candidates of their

choice, the Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activity

while on duty. During the 2004 Presidential Election, the EPA employee favored John

Kerry, and while on duty, sent 31 of his co-workers an email urging them to support Mr.

Kerry’s campaign. On the other hand, the SSA employee favored George W. Bush, and

while on duty, sent a similar email to 27 of his co-workers and other individuals. It was

irrelevant which candidate each employee supported, both were found to have violated

the Hatch Act because sending emails in support of any candidate while on duty

constitutes prohibited political activity. Disciplinary action for violations of the Hatch

Act range from 30-day suspension without pay to termination from federal employment.

Passing Out Campaign Stickers at a VA Clinic Ends Federal Career In his fervor to help elect a candidate for President, a Veterans Affairs employee

ignored federal laws prohibiting federal employees from engaging in political activity on

federal property—in this case, a VA clinic in Ohio. There the employee passed out

campaign stickers promoting his candidate. The employee later acknowledged that this

seemingly innocuous act was in fact a violation of federal law (the Hatch Act). As a

result, the employee has agreed to retire from the VA. The penalty could have been

termination.

Warning: Federal Employees and Some Non-Federal Employees May

Not Engage in Politics at Work The Executive Director of Delaware’s New Castle County Head Start Program

received a 30-day suspension without pay for promoting a candidate for the U.S. House

of Representatives in his official capacity. Violations of the Hatch Act don’t get much

more blatant than this. The Director invited a candidate to speak to his captive

subordinate audience at a mandatory office meeting. The Hatch Act prohibits federal

executive branch employees from engaging in political activity while on duty and from

using their official positions, authority, or influence to interfere with the results of an

124

election. During the meeting, the Director introduced the candidate, passed out campaign

materials, and offered employees the opportunity to register to vote. He later admitted

that he had violated the Hatch Act. But why is the Director of the New Castle County

Head Start program covered by the Hatch Act? The answer is this: the Hatch Act also

covers state, county, or municipal executive agency employees whose duties are

connected with programs financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants. Head

Start is one such program.

Agriculture Department Manager Suspended for Hatch Act Violation A Department of Agriculture manager received a four-month suspension after

soliciting political contributions from subordinates. The Hatch Act prohibits Federal

employees from certain activities in partisan political campaigns. The employee asked

subordinates at work to contribute to the 1992 Democratic presidential campaign.

Although the Hatch Act was amended in 1994 to allow Federal employees to participate

more in partisan political activities, it still prohibits employees from engaging in political

activities while on duty or in any Government office.

Government Employees Sentenced for Political Fundraising in a USDA

Building Four employees of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) were convicted for

political fundraising on Federal property. The USDA employees organized a Political

Action Committee to raise money for the 1992 campaign. They collected a total of

$3,250 in checks from various individuals in a USDA building. To encourage donations,

the four employees suggested that contributions to the fund might result in special

consideration from the USDA officials affiliated with the Administration. Following the

election, the four created a list of USDA employees who should not, in their opinion,

receive special consideration from the Administration. The four defendants each

received four years probation. Two of the defendants were fined $1,000 and ordered to

perform community service. The other two defendants were fined $2,500 and ordered to

serve 30 days detention in a halfway house.

125

Political Activities/Misuse of Government Email System Allegations were made against a Department of Defense civilian employee

regarding the distribution of political material over the Government email system. The

allegation was made after the employee sent a political attack message regarding a certain

presidential candidate to everyone in the unit—including the commanding officer, who

promptly notified the Inspector General.

An investigation determined that the material was inappropriate for distribution

through the Government email system. A written memo of counseling was placed in the

employee’s personnel file. Although the Hatch Act was amended in 1994 to allow

Federal employees to participate more in partisan political activities, it still prohibits

employees from engaging in political activities while on duty or in any Government

office.

Political Activities: Two Humorous But True Stories An election was coming up and one enterprising young Federal employee called

his ethics officer to inquire whether it was permitted, under the Hatch Act Amendments,

to stuff ballot boxes!

An employee who was told not to wear a Bush campaign button responded, “But

I’m not. This is a button from his dad’s campaign!”

Postal Employee Hatch Act Violation The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) announced that the Merit Systems

Protection Board (MSPB) had concurred with OSC’s petition that a mail processor for

the U.S. Postal Service’s (USPS) Mid-Missouri Processing and Distribution Facility

violated the Hatch Act’s prohibition on being a candidate for elective office in a partisan

election.

OSC’s petition charged the postal employee with willfully violating the Hatch

Act. The employee did not respond to OSC’s petition and instead resigned from the

Postal Service on March 5, 2001. The MSPB decision stated that “[name withheld’s]

resignation does not moot the Special Counsel’s complaint. Rather, his total failure to

answer the complaint warrants the [his] removal from USPS.” In view of the postal

126

employee’s resignation, MSPB required the Postal Service to place a copy of its decision

in the employee’s official personnel file.

When the postal employee began his job as a mail processor in Columbia,

Missouri in 1997, he was given training material that explained that Postal Service

employees were covered by the Hatch Act and could not be candidates in partisan

elections. The Hatch Act prohibits most Federal and postal employees from running for

partisan office. Hatch Act penalties for Federal and postal employees range from a

minimum of a 30-day suspension without pay to removal.

Federal Employee Removed from Position for Hatch Act Violation The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) announced that the Merit Systems

Protection Board (MSPB) had granted its petitions to remove two U.S. Postal Service

employees from their positions as Letter Carriers: the first in Jeff Davis County, Georgia,

and the second in Nevada County, Arkansas. OSC’s petitions, filed with the MSPB in

October 2000, charged both men with violating the Hatch Act’s prohibition on being a

candidate for elective office in a partisan election. Both men had filed papers to run as

independent candidates in partisan local sheriff races. Both were warned by the OSC and

by their Postal Service supervisors that their candidacies violated the Hatch Act.

Nevertheless, when OSC filed its petitions in October, both men remained active

candidates and both continued their candidacies until the November 7th general election.

Both were eventually removed from their positions in the Postal Service.

The Hatch Act strictly prohibits most Federal and Postal Service employees from

running for partisan elective office. It also strictly prohibits state and local employees

who have job duties in connection with federally funded programs from running for

partisan office.

EPA Official Disciplined for Hatch Act Violation A Regional Administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in

Denver, Colorado, agreed to a 100-day suspension to settle a petition by the U.S. Office

of Special Counsel (OSC) alleging that he had violated the Hatch Act. The administrator

had resigned from EPA in order to run for a Montana Congressional seat, but lost his bid

for election. He was accordingly appointed back to his former position as Regional

127

Administrator. OSC’s petition for disciplinary action alleged that the administrator

subsequently met with one of the remaining Congressional candidates as well as several

of the candidate’s campaign officials. During that meeting, the participants discussed the

administrator’s endorsement of the candidate and the solicitation of campaign

contributions. Shortly after the meeting, an endorsement/fundraising letter was drafted

for the administrator’s review and approval. Among other things, the letter stated:

“Contributing now to [the remaining candidate’s] campaign is absolutely critical.” It

urged recipients to “. . . make a contribution today.”

OSC’s petition alleged that the administrator reviewed the draft letter and

authorized the candidate’s campaign staff to sign his name to it, in violation of the Hatch

Act. That Act prohibits Federal employees from soliciting political contributions.

Subsequently, the candidate’s campaign distributed the signed letter to numerous

potential supporters.

The Special Counsel also emphasized that while OSC stands ready to prosecute

violations of the Hatch Act, it prefers to help Federal employees avoid such violations.

“When in doubt about what is permissible or impermissible under Hatch Act,” the

Special Counsel advised, “I would encourage employees to consult our office. There’s a

wealth of information at our website, www.osc.gov, and employees can actually e-mail

questions to us.”

Five Hatch Act Violations Made by Agriculture Employee The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) announced a consent judgment had

been entered in its Petition for Disciplinary Action filed against an attorney for the

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in NLRB’s Little Rock, Arkansas office.

OSC’s petition, filed with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), had charged the

attorney with five Hatch Act violations: (1) participating in partisan political activity

while on duty; (2) participating in political activity or in Federal office space; (3) using

his official authority for the purpose of interfering with the result of an election; (4)

knowingly soliciting the political participation of individuals with business interests

pending before the NLRB; and (5) knowingly soliciting, accepting, or receiving political

contributions.

128

Pursuant to a stipulation, the attorney admitted that he had violated the Hatch Act

and agreed to be removed from Federal employment. The Hatch Act prohibits most

Federal employees from engaging in partisan political activities in Federal office space or

while on duty. The Hatch Act also prohibits Federal employees from using their official

authority for the purpose of affecting the results of an election; this would include using

an official Government title and soliciting “volunteer” services from a subordinate

employee. The Hatch Act also prohibits knowingly soliciting the political participation

of certain individuals, including those with business pending before an employee’s

Federal Agency.

Employee’s Mayoral Run Violates Hatch Act When a Federal Aviation Administration employee decided to run for mayor of

Albuquerque, he wisely consulted his Ethics Counselor. He was advised that the Hatch

Act did not prohibit him from entering the mayoral race. A problem soon emerged,

however, when advertisements, press releases, and newspaper editorials started to

identify the employee as a Republican, and the employee began to accept financial

assistance from the Republican Party. The employee was swiftly contacted by the Office

of Special Counsel, which advised him that he was in violation of the Hatch Act and

needed to quit his campaign or leave his federal position. The employee, however, took

the position that he was not in fact in violation of any laws, and continued his campaign.

Unhappily for the employee, the voters did not afford him much interest, and his

campaign never truly got off the ground. He did manage, however, to catch the attention

of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The employee’s violation of the Hatch Act

earned him a 120-day suspension.

(Source: www.fedsmith.com, April 18, 2005)

DC Mayor’s Chief of Staff Removed for Hatch Act Violations The former Chief of Staff to the Mayor of the District of Columbia was forced to

voluntarily resign after the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) charged him with two

instances of violations of the Hatch Act. Specifically, the OSC charged that the Chief of

Staff — a D.C. employee — improperly asked other D.C. employees to volunteer to work

on the Mayor’s reelection campaign; the Chief of Staff was also charged with soliciting

129

employees to purchase tickets to a Democratic fundraiser. In return for the Chief of

Staff’s voluntary resignation and his agreement not to seek or accept employment with

the District of Columbia for a period of two years, the OSC agreed to drop its charges.

The Hatch Act prohibits most District of Columbia and federal employees from

seeking nomination or election to a partisan political office; soliciting, accepting or

receiving political contributions; and engaging in political activity while on duty, among

other things. (Source: OSC, 3/21/05)

Co-Hosting a Political Fundraiser Earns Suspension An attorney in the Civil Division of the Department of Justice experienced the

other side of the judicial process after being charged by the U.S. Office of Special

Counsel (OSC) with a violation of the Hatch Act. The attorney had self-reported that he

had co-hosted a political fundraiser for seven invitees, presumably unaware that this was

a violation of the Hatch Act. The attorney reached a voluntary settlement with the OSC

in which he served a 30-day suspension.

The attorney violated 5 U.S.C. 7323(a)(2), which prohibits federal employees

from knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving political contributions. The Hatch Act

prohibits most District of Columbia and federal employees from seeking nomination or

election to a partisan political office; soliciting, accepting or receiving political

contributions; using their official authority to interfere with the results of an election; and

engaging in political activity while on duty, among other things.

Political Emails at Work Lead to Employee Removal An attorney for the Small Business Administration was removed from his position

after it was discovered that over a period of three years, he had received, read, drafted or

sent over 100 emails from his government computer related to partisan activity. The

attorney, an elected official of the California Green Party, used the computer for emails

involving issues such as drafts of party platforms, the planning of party conventions,

party fundraising, and party recruitment. Although the attorney had previously assured

his supervisor — who was aware of his political activities—that he would not violate the

Hatch Act, this assurance proved to be deceptive.

130

The Hatch Act prohibits most District of Columbia and federal employees from

seeking nomination or election to a partisan political office, soliciting, accepting or

receiving political contributions, using their official authority to interfere with the results

of an election, and engaging in political activity while on duty, among other things.

(Source: OSC, 11/28/05)

Humorous Partisan Emails Found to Violate the Hatch Act During the 2004 election, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) filed two

complaints alleging that Federal employees had violated the Hatch Act by sending

politically partisan e-mail messages to coworkers. In the first complaint, the OSC alleged

that an employee at the Environmental Protection Agency sent an e-mail to fifteen

coworkers that contained a widely-circulated photograph and several negative statements

about one candidate. In the second complaint, the OSC alleged that an Air Force civilian

employee sent an e-mail while on official duty to 70 recipients that contained a mock

resume of one of the candidates.

The Hatch Act prohibits Federal employees from engaging in political activity

while on duty, while in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties

by an individual employed by the Government, while wearing a uniform, or while in a

Government vehicle. The Hatch Act does not prohibit “water cooler”-type discussions

among co-workers about current events, and consequently does not prohibit “water

cooler” discussion over e-mail. E-mail can be used as an alternative mode for casual

conversation, but a line is crossed when Federal employees disseminate their message to

a mass audience, enabling them to engage in an electronic form of leafleting at the

worksite.

OSC has advised that in order to determine whether an e-mail violates the Hatch

Act prohibition against engaging in political activity, it will consider the following: the

audience that received the e-mail, the number of people to whom the e-mail was sent, the

sender’s relationship to the recipient, whether the purpose of the message is to encourage

the recipient to support a particular political party or candidate, whether the message was

sent in a Federal building, and whether the Federal employee was on duty.

131

No Politics When In Uniform A military Department chastised two political rivals when their camps ran

campaign ads displaying uniformed Marines. The Democratic and Republican opponents

in one Congressional District attempted to use the appearance of military support to

ensure victory on Election Day, but a friendly visit from a military representative quickly

forced them to pull their ads. One of the uniformed men pictured, a veteran, said he

believed that because he was on inactive reserve, he could “speak his mind.” Military

spokesperson pointed out, however, “It doesn’t matter if he or she is on inactive reserve,”

regulations strictly prohibit service members from wearing uniforms in any

circumstances that might imply military endorsement of a certain candidate. Although in

such situations the individual services could take disciplinary and/or administrative

action, military investigators deemed the service members’ involvement honest mistakes.

(Department of Defense, Inspector General)

Two Service Members Posed for Pictures at Political Event Two service members made a faux pas when local political leaders invited them

to attend a “Lincoln Birthday dinner.” Under the guise that their invitations to the

fundraiser were in honor of their service in Iraq, both service members attended the

seemingly harmless event. They soon found themselves in the spotlight, however, when

called on stage and presented with a U.S. flag. Although neither spoke at the function,

their presence was a clever tactic for special “photo opportunities” used to show military

support of the campaign. Posted on the local party’s website, the presentation photos

violated regulations that prohibit active duty service members from attending political

events as official representatives of the Armed Forces.

Regulations stipulate that service members should avoid any activity that people

may view as associating the Department of Defense (DoD) directly or indirectly with a

partisan political event. DoD does permit unofficial attendance at such events but only so

long as the attendee is a spectator, not in uniform.

Upon discovering the photos, one of the service members immediately took action

to remove the photos and alert his chain of command. Because of these actions, and in

light of the fact that the party apparently lured them to the event under false pretences,

the two service members received only counseling. (DoD Inspector General)

132

Post-Employment Violations

(18 U.S.C. § 207-Type Violations)

Post Employment “Lifetime Ban” A Government employee that was involved in approving a contract for

audio/visual equipment left the Government to work for that contractor. At the

completion of work, the Government had paid approximately $6 million for $841,000

worth of equipment. Several individuals were charged with fraud, and the employee that

left the Government for the outside position was charged with violating the post-

employment restriction in 18 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). He received one year probation and a

$25,000 fine.

Friends in Low Places The former deputy associate director of Minerals Revenue Management at the

Mineral Management Service of the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) pled guilty to

violating post government employment restrictions. Milton K. Dial admitted accepting a

position as a subcontractor working for and representing a company in a contract with

DOI approximately six months after retiring from the agency. Before his retirement from

DOI Dial created the evaluation criteria for the bids for this same contract, served on the

evaluation committee that awarded the contract to the company, and served as the

contracting officer’s technical representative at DOI for the company’s contract until the

time of his retirement.

The company was owned by a friend of Dial’s, Jimmy W. Mayberry, who had

likewise been a DOI employee. Mayberry pled guilty to a felony violation of the conflict

of interest law, admitting in plea documents that he created the requirements for the same

contract immediately before his retirement from DOI with the intent of bidding on the

contract immediately after his retirement. When bidding took place, Mayberry, not

surprisingly, was awarded the contract after he was the only applicant to receive a grade

of “excellent” on every qualification category. Mayberry was sentenced to two years of

probation and a $2,500 fine.

133

Dial’s sentencing is still pending, but he faces a maximum sentence of five years

in prison, a fine of $250,000, and a term of supervised release.

Power Point A Military Service Captain had, under his official responsibility a program with a

government contractor during his last year of service. The Captain prepared a

Powerpoint presentation recommending the service contract with this company.

After leaving the service, the Captain went to work for the same government

contractor. He was treated to an ethics counseling session after he approached the

Government on behalf of his new company and delivered - as the company’s

representative - the same Powerpoint presentation recommending the service contract

with his company.

The Captain’s actions violated 18 U.S.C. 207, which prohibits former officers or

employees of the executive branch from making, with the intent to influence,

communications or appearances before a Federal Government officer or employee in

connection with a particular matter in which the former officer or employee participated

personally and substantially while an officer or employee.

Federal Employee’s Post-Employment Violations Cost Boeing $615

Million, Federal Employee Ends Behind Bars The former chief procurement officer for the Air Force, who was responsible for

awarding billions of dollars in contracts, requested Boeing executives to give her

daughter and son-in-law jobs at Boeing. They did, and after the chief procurement

officer retired from the Air Force, they gave her a job, too. After a criminal investigation,

Boeing admitted to corruption charges involving conflicts of interest and other unrelated

violations. Boeing settled with the Justice Department for $615 million. The former Air

Force chief procurement officer met with Boeing’s Chief Financial Officer and discussed

a potential job with Boeing while Boeing was seeking a $20 billion contract to lease

tanker aircraft to the Air Force. Federal ethics rules require federal employees to

disqualify themselves from participating in matters regarding companies with which they

are seeking employment, and federal law imposes criminal liability when federal

employees participate in matters in which they have a personal financial interest. The

134

procurement officer did not disqualify herself from participating in matters involving

Boeing as she should have. Rather, she used her position to get her daughter, son-in-law,

and herself jobs. She ended up serving a prison sentence for conflicts of interest

violations. Boeing’s Chief Financial Officer was also charged in the investigation and

pled guilty to aiding and abetting acts affecting a personal financial interest. He was

sentenced to four months in prison, a $250,000 fine, and 200 hours of community service.

In addition to settling with the government for $615 million, Boeing’s $20 billion tanker

lease contract was canceled.

Conflict of Interest Earns Official One Year Probation The Chief of the Headquarters Support Branch found herself “fired” after a

conflict of interest regarding handgun procurement. The official began employment talks

with a company that ran a “reverse auctioning service” for Federal agencies; through this

service, the company facilitated online auctions for Federal contracts in exchange for a

commission from successful recipients. The official wisely consulted her ethics

counselor regarding her job hunt, and assured the counselor that she would disqualify

herself from involvement with any contracts involving the company. Unfortunately, the

official subsequently participated personally and substantially in a handgun procurement

in which she knew that the company had a financial interest. In addition to attending

meetings and making phone calls related to the procurement, the official directed her

subordinate to require all prospective bidders to register with and utilize the company’s

services.

The official pled guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. 208 for participating

personally and substantially in a particular matter in which an organization with whom

she was negotiating for employment had a financial interest. She was sentenced to one

year of probation, 40 hours of community service, and a $1,000 fine.

Watch Representing a Business to the Agency Where Employed the

Previous Year! The Facts: A Senior Executive Service (SES) employee of the State Department,

who had been tasked with assisting the Bosnian Government in purchasing military

equipment and training, retired and within several days took employment with a private

135

contractor of military hardware. Six months later, he recommended to the United States

Embassy in Sarajevo that it support his bid for a contract between his new employer and

the Bosnian Government. His bid for the contract was successful, but he also succeeded

in securing legal action from the United States Government. The employee agreed to a

$10,000 settlement in exchange for being released from legal proceedings. (Source:

Office of Government Ethics memorandum, Oct. 2002.)

The Law: 18 U.S.C. § 207(c) (2003) bars every SES employee for one year after

ending employment with the United States from knowingly communicating with the

Federal agency or office with which he or she has worked, with the intent of influencing

that agency or office on behalf of anyone (other than the Government) who seeks an

official action.

DoD Official Pays $12,000 to Department of Justice to Settle Ethics

Complaint A former DoD Deputy Inspector General (IG) paid $12,000 to the Government to

settle allegations that he violated 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(2), a criminal statute that prohibits

former Government employees from representing others to the Government on matters

that were under the former employee's official responsibility during his last year in office.

The prohibition lasts for two years after the former employee leaves office. In this case,

during the former Deputy IG's last year in office, his audit staff commenced an audit of a

particular DoD program. The audit report, which was not released until after the Deputy

IG had left the Government, recommended eliminating part of the program that was

operated by a private contractor. The same contractor hired the former Deputy IG, who

had by then been gone over one year, as an independent auditor to review the audit

report. On several occasions, while acting on behalf of the contractor, and within two

years after leaving DoD, the former Deputy IG contacted DoD employees and criticized

the report with the intent to influence the judgment of the DoD employees.

18 U.S.C. 207(a)(2) prohibits such representations. This statute is often

overlooked by Government employees. It includes all particular matters involving

specific parties in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial

interest that were actually pending under the former employee's official responsibility

during his or her last year of employment. This includes matters that the former

136

employee may not have known about, or matters in which the employee may not have

played in role in determining, but, because of the employee's position, were pending

under his or her official responsibility. As noted above, the statute prohibits the former

employee from representing anyone to the Government regarding such matters for a

period of two years after the employee leaves Government service.

SEC Attorney Sentenced for Switching Sides After Leaving

Government A former attorney with the Denver regional office of the Securities and Exchange

Commission (SEC) was convicted for violating 18 U.S.C. 207(a), which prohibits former

Government employees from communicating with the Government with regard to matters

they worked on as Government employees. The SEC attorney was responsible for

investigating certain stock promoters regarding their promotion of stock in a certain

company that the promoters owned. Upon departure from the SEC, the attorney was

hired by the same stock promoters to perform legal work for their subsidiary companies,

including the company the attorney had been investigating while at SEC. The attorney,

in his new capacity as director and counsel for the company, responded to a subpoena and

communicated with SEC officials on behalf of the company in question.

The attorney was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for this violation of a

criminal post-employment statute.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Settles Post-Government

Employment Violation The Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) of the Information Resources

Management (IRM) office within the Department of Justice left Government service in

January 1999. In his former position, he had managed the various functions of the IRM

office, which is responsible for maintaining, assessing, designing, and procuring the

information systems and telecommunications for the Department of Justice. At all

pertinent times, he was paid at the rate of level 5 of the Executive Service pay scale.

After the former DAAG left Government service, he joined Science Applications

International Corporation (SAIC). On April 7, 1999, now working for SAIC, the former

DAAG telephoned the Acting DAAG of IRM. He told the Acting DAAG that he knew

137

that the Department of Justice was considering not using SAIC on a new contract, and

stated that such action might require a payment to SAIC, which could, in turn, trigger the

Anti-Deficiency Act because budgeted funds would have been exceeded.

The Government maintained that the former DAAG’s conduct violated 18 U.S.C.

207(c), a criminal statute that prohibits a former senior employee from communicating to

or appearing before employees of his former department or Agency for one year after

leaving the Government, on behalf of another, with the intent to influence official action.

Pursuant to a civil settlement agreement signed by the parties in August 2000, the former

DAAG paid the Government $30,000, and the Government released him from its claims.

Civil Complaint Filed Against FDA Chemist for Post-Employment

Activities According to the Government's civil complaint, the accused chemist was

employed by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the Office of

Generic Drugs (OGD) for a period of approximately two years. In that capacity, the

chemist performed reviews of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) submitted

by pharmaceutical companies seeking to gain approval to manufacture and market

generic versions of innovator drugs. Shortly before leaving employment with the FDA,

the chemist completed the first-level chemistry review of a pharmaceutical company’s

ANDA for Miconazole Nitrate Vaginal Creme 2%, an alleged generic equivalent to the

prescription drug Monistat-7. His review consisted of an extensive analysis of the

chemical components, manufacturing process, testing methods, and labeling requirements

of the product. Approximately two years later, the chemist commenced employment as

Vice President of Regulatory Affairs and United States Agent for the same

pharmaceutical company. He subsequently contacted OGD officials on numerous

occasions in an effort to obtain approval of the company’s ANDA, which was still

pending before OGD. His contacts consisted of status calls in which he urged OGD

representatives to speed up the process of approval of the application and substantive

discussions concerning problems with the application.

A subsequent investigation found that throughout the chemist’s contacts with

OGD officials, he was aggressive in seeking the approval of the ANDA. Further, the

chemist used his acquaintance with supervisory-level OGD officials from his tenure as an

138

OGD employee in an attempt to get special treatment for the ANDA. The ANDA was

approved several months later.

In the complaint, the Government alleged that the former employee’s actions

violated 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(1), which permanently prohibits a former Government

employee from communicating to or appearing before the Government, on behalf of

another, in connection with a particular matter, involving specific parties, in which he

participated personally and substantially as a Government employee. Pursuant to a

settlement agreement, the former employee agreed to pay the Government $15,000, and

the Government released him from its claims.

Improper Post-Employment Activities by Former Contract

Administrator As contract administrator for the United States Air Force, the employee was

responsible for assuring compliance with the terms of two separate construction contracts

between the Government and a private contractor. After leaving the Government, the

contract administrator was hired by the same contractor, and he became the company’s

contract administrator on the same two contracts in question. While representing the

contractor, he submitted contract progress reports to the Government in order to insure

that the Government would compensate the company. Eventually, the former Federal

employee submitted to the Government an equitable adjustment claim for approximately

$574,613 on one of the contracts. The contract had a basic value of $1.3 million.

The former Federal employee was convicted on two counts of violating 18 U.S.C.

207(a)(1), a post-employment restriction that prohibits former Government employees

intending to influence official action from communicating to or appearing before the

Government, on behalf of another, in connection with particular matters involving

specific parties in which they participated personally and substantially as Government

employees. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 216(a)(2), he was sentenced to six months of

imprisonment, six months of home confinement, a fine of $2000, and a special

assessment of $200.

139

Air Force Officer Pleads Guilty to 18 U.S.C. 207 Violation An Air Force Colonel at Eielson Air Force Base worked on the 801 Housing

Project, an approximately $70 million contract to build military family housing at the

base. The housing would be owned by a civilian developer and leased to the United

States. The Colonel was assigned to oversee the project and was the Wing Commander's

direct representative. He was also the chairman of the "801 Housing Working Group,"

which met weekly to discuss any problems arising from the 801 Housing Project.

Through his position as chairman of the 801 Housing Working Group, the Colonel

worked with representatives of the corporation which took over as construction

contractor for the project in May 1994. In October of 1995, the corporation acquired

ownership of a second corporation. In January 1996, the Colonel began to express an

interest in becoming an employee of the first corporation. He retired from active duty

with the United States Air Force during July 1996 and began to work for the company as

General Manager, Government Services Division, in August 1996. The United States

continued to engage in contractual matters with the corporation with respect to the 801

Housing Project. In September 1996, the United States and the second, acquired

corporation entered into a lease wherein the United States leased from the corporation the

military housing units of the 801 Housing Project. Under the lease agreement, the United

States was to pay the second corporation $8,688,150.00 on or about October 15, 1996,

but did not make the payment until October 21, 1996. On or about the 17th and 18th of

October 1996, the now-retired Colonel, as a representative of both corporations,

contacted an employee of the Air Force to attempt to expedite the late payment on the

801 Housing Project. In addition, on or about the 19th or 20th of May 1997, the retired

Colonel, again on behalf of the corporations, contacted an employee of the Air Force to

express displeasure regarding the Air Force's warranty claims on the 801 Housing

Project.

The United States charged the retired Colonel with violating 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(1)

by contacting Air Force employees regarding the late payment and the warranty claims.

18 U.S.C. 207(a)(1) bars former Federal personnel (civilians and military) from

representing another to Federal agencies with the intent to influence regarding particular

140

matters that involve specific parties in which the former employee participated personally

and substantially while in Federal employment.

The retired Colonel pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor violation of 18 U.S.C.

207(a)(1) and agreed to pay a fine of $5,000.

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Superintendent Commits 18 U.S.C. 207

Violation The Indian Business Development Grant (IBDG) program was created to provide

Federal grant funds to eligible Indian persons and Indian tribal organizations. Funds to

be released through the IBDG program must be approved by the BIA. The BIA Agency

Superintendent for the Crow Reservation was found to have misapplied $103,750 of

IBDG funds and $311,275 of Crow Tribe funds for the purchase of land by the Crow

Tribe from a private party. The land purchase was never completed. The superintendent

subsequently retired from the BIA in 1994 and became employed by the Crow Tribe as

manager of the tribal casino. Beginning in 1996, the former superintendent represented

the Crow Tribe in appearances before the BIA in connection with the reconciliation and

justification for the release of the $103,750 of IBDG funds that the superintendent had

approved for the failed land purchase in 1992.

The former superintendent was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 207,

representing the Crow Tribe before the United States in connection with the

reconciliation and justification for the release of IBDG funds, a matter in which he had

participated personally and substantially as a superintendent of the BIA. He was also

charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy to convert Federal funds), 18 U.S.C.

641 (willfully converting Federal funds), and 18 U.S.C. 1163 (misapplication of tribal

monies) and found guilty on all but the 18 U.S.C. 1163 charge. He was sentenced to five

years' probation, six months' detention, a $150 Special Assessment to the Crime Victims

Fund, and a $6,000 fine.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Officer Pleads Guilty to 18 U.S.C. 207

Violation While a collection officer for the IRS, the accused was assigned to the collection

cases of two IRS taxpayers. After the accused left the IRS, he represented both taxpayers

141

before the IRS in connection with the collection cases to which he had been assigned as

an IRS employee.

He was charged with two violations of 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(1), making a

communication to and an appearance before an officer and employee of the IRS, on

behalf of the two taxpayers in connection with a matter in which the United States was a

party or had an interest and in which he had participated while an IRS employee. The

accused pled guilty to the charges and was sentenced to one year of probation and 100

hours of community service.

United States Army Officer and Procurement Official Fined $50,000 for

18 U.S.C. 207 and Procurement Integrity Act Violations The Army Officer coordinated activities for all medical facilities within his

region, including Army, Navy, and Air Force facilities. In 1994, the officer retired from

the Army and began employment with a defense contractor. This contractor had

previously been awarded a contract to provide inpatient and outpatient psychiatric

services in support of William Beaumont Army Medical Center; while the officer was

employed by the Army, his official duties had included awarding and supervising this

contract. The Army Audit Agency subsequently began an audit of the contractor’s

contract to determine whether an option to renew the contract should be exercised. The

audit was completed on January 10, 1994, and forwarded to the officer. On July 12,

1995, a request for proposals was issued by the Audit Agency for a follow-on contract to

provide essentially the same services that were being provided by the contractor. On

October 13, 1995, the contractor submitted a proposal, which was signed by the retired

officer as the company's Senior Vice President.

The retired officer was charged with civil violations of the Procurement Integrity

Act, 41 U.S.C. 423(f)(1), and of 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(2), and 207(c)(1). Pursuant to a

settlement agreement dated July 23, 1998, the accused agreed to pay the United States

$50,000 in exchange for the United States' dismissal of the complaint.

142

Attorney for Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Division of

Enforcement Violates 18 U.S.C. 207 In 1993, the SEC attorney was assigned to investigate a group of persons for

securities fraud involving the payment of bribes to manipulate the market for the shares

of certain companies. These bribes consisted of kickbacks promoters were paying

brokers to tout the stocks of their companies. As part of this investigation, the attorney

investigated two stock promoters, who cooperated in the attorney’s investigation and

gave him sworn testimony in which they admitted to engaging in the payment of bribes

intended to manipulate the share price of the company’s stock. The attorney left the SEC

on February 20, 1995 under threat of suspension for unrelated misconduct. He was

immediately hired by the two stock promoters to serve as their corporation’s legal

counsel. In January 1996, the SEC's New York office, working in conjunction with the

U.S. Attorney's office in the Eastern District of New York, began an investigation of the

entire matter. In February 1996, the SEC issued a subpoena for documents from the

promoters’ corporation. The attorney, who was then the corporation’s counsel and also

on the corporation's board of directors, participated in responding to that subpoena.

Investigators charged that the attorney’s participation included communications

with SEC officials that violated 18 U.S.C. 207(a), which prohibits former Government

employees from communicating with the Government with intent to influence in

connection with particular matters involving specific parties in which they participated

personally and substantially as Government employees. The attorney and five other

defendants (including the two stock promoters) were indicted in October 1996 for

securities fraud. After the five co-defendants pleaded guilty, the attorney was indicted on

a host of new charges, including securities fraud, money laundering, and a violation of 18

U.S.C. 207(a). He pled guilty to three counts, including the 207(a) charge.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Manager Resigns and Then

Has Improper Contact with the Agency While supervising the Airway Facilities Branch of the FAA, the manager had

official involvement in the procurement of "Airway Facilities Training Services." This

FAA contract was valued at $43,607,755. On March 27, 1992, the manager accepted a

position with a bidder for the above-described contract as "Manager, Training Services

143

on the Federal Aviation Administration's Airway Facilities Contract." On August 10,

1992, the bidder included the former manager’s name as "Program Manager" in the bid

proposal. Members of the Source Evaluation Board, recognizing the name, became

concerned as to the possible violations of procurement integrity laws and sought advice

from FAA legal counsel. The FAA legal counsel requested an official investigation on

June 8, 1993. Evidence produced during the investigation indicated that the manager in

his former capacity had personally reviewed, amended, and corrected the Statement of

Work for the bid, and had also been responsible for the nominations of two selection

board members for the contract. After resigning, the former manager appeared before the

FAA on behalf of the bidder, his then-employer, at meetings pertaining to the

procurement.

The former manager pled guilty to a single count of violating 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(2),

and was sentenced to one year of probation and was fined $5000. This statute bars

former Federal personnel from representing a party to Federal agencies, for a period of

two years after leaving Government, regarding particular matters involving specific

parties which were pending under the employee’s official responsibility during the

employee’s last year of Federal service.

Senior Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System Violates 18 U.S.C. 207 Following her resignation, the former Board of Governors member was elected to

the boards of directors of a number of companies. One of these companies was affected

by a guideline issued by the Federal Reserve called the highly leveraged transaction

(HLT) guideline. The Fed requested public comment on the HLT guideline. The

company in question submitted a written comment to the Fed, and company officials met

with a member of the Fed's Board of Governors. The former Board of Governors

member both arranged and attended the meeting. She introduced the company officials

to the member of the Fed's Board of Governors, but said nothing during the substantive

part of the meeting. The company paid the former employee $1,500 for her participation

in the meeting.

The former employee agreed to pay a $5,000 civil fine in connection with a

criminal investigation into whether she violated the one-year bar of 18 U.S.C. 207(c), the

144

post-employment activities statute. This statute prohibits former senior Government

officials for one year after leaving their senior positions from representing or appearing

before employees of their former agencies on behalf of another with the intent to

influence them regarding official action.

Former Official at the Department of Agriculture’s Federal Crop

Insurance Corporation (FCIC) Improperly Represents New Employer

to U.S. Government A major crop insurance corporation began the FCIC appeal process with respect

to adverse FCIC decisions on certain claims (including the case of a certain Maine potato

farmer) by sending to the official in question a notice of intent to appeal. Later that year,

the official left the FCIC and joined the crop insurance corporation as a consultant. After

the FCIC rejected the appeals that the company had initiated, the official repeatedly tried

to persuade Agency officials to reconsider the denial of the appeal involving the Maine

potato farmer.

The former official pled guilty to two counts of violating the two-year restriction

on post-employment contacts codified at 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(2) and was sentenced to

probation. This statute bars former employees for a period two years from representing

others to Federal agencies regarding particular matters involving specific parties which

were pending under the former employee’s official responsibility during his or her last

year of Federal service.

Employee Gets Two Years Probation for Improper Post-Government

Representations A contract specialist for the General Services Administration (GSA) pled guilty to

violating conflict-of-interest laws after her retirement from federal service. During the

specialist’s five years at the GSA, she oversaw a number of software-related contracts.

She was involved personally and substantially in one large contract in particular, the

negotiation of which encompassed the span of several years. Upon retirement from her

position at the GSA, the contract specialist sought employment with the company that

had received the large contract. Over the next several months, the specialist contacted

145

GSA multiple times with the intent to influence GSA to extend the company’s contract as

well as award the company new contracts.

The specialist pled guilty to violating 18 USC 207(a)(1), which prohibits an

executive branch employee from knowingly making, with the intent to influence, any

communication to any agency on behalf of any other person in connection with a

particular matter in which the person participated personally and substantially as such

officer or employee. She was sentenced to two years supervised probation and substance

abuse treatment.

Negotiating with Employer While Engaged in Official Matters Earns

$5000 Fine The Chief of Staff for the President’s Critical Infrastructure Protection Board

(PCIPB) in the Office of Homeland Security participated in negotiations with a company

for a contract to provide support functions for the Board. However, at the same time, he

was speaking with the company regarding prospective employment. The Chief of Staff

interviewed with the company on July 18, and didn’t submit a letter of recusal until July

24. Meanwhile, he received a job offer on July 23, which he accepted on August 1.

When investigators began to look into the timeline of the employment offer, the former

Chief of Staff was forced to step down from the company and pay a $5,000 fine to settle

the matter.

Former Admiral Convicted for Violating One-year Cooling-Off Period A retired Admiral and current top official with a San Diego school district pled

guilty to a misdemeanor charge of violating 18 U.S.C. 207, a conflict-of-interest law. As

a result, a U.S. Magistrate sentenced him to serve one year of probation and fined him

$15,000. Despite previously holding a prestigious Government post and receiving praise

from fellow colleagues, the officer’s error in judgment cost him dearly. In addition to the

probation, fine, and legal fees, he has resigned from the company that hired him, and may

lose his job as chief administrative officer of the city school district,

Known as the one-year “cooling off period,” 18 U.S.C. 207 forbids former senior

officers of the Executive branch from representing other persons before their former

agency within one year of leaving Government. In his plea, the former officer admitted

146

to signing a major contract proposal and cover letter on behalf of the company and sent to

his former employer, specifically with the intent to influence the decision. On a side

note, investigators detected the conflict of interest just in time for the Government to

eliminate the company’s bid from consideration.

(Source: The San Diego Union-Tribune, July 12, 2007)

Salary for Government Work from Non-Government Source

(18 U.S.C. § 209-Type Violations)

Visa Scam Nets $3,000 Fine The Chief Consular Officer at a U.S. Embassy earned herself a one-way trip to

Federal court after investigators discovered she had traded tourist visas for pricey jaunts

to Paris and Las Vegas. Investigators learned that after becoming acquainted with a

group of businesswomen, the officer had accepted several all-expenses paid trips. Two

of these trips were to Las Vegas, where the officer and family members stayed in

expensive suites at the MGM Grand and Caesar’s Palace. Airfare alone for the two trips

was valued at $5,000. The officer also accepted an all-expenses paid trip to Paris to

attend a charitable event, including first-class airfare valued at $2,400. Subsequently,

two of the businesswomen submitted tourist visas to the officer on behalf of various

foreign individuals. The officer approved 23 visas, all for individuals who were

ineligible under standard Embassy policy.

The officer pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 209(a), supplementation of salary.

She was sentenced to one year of probation and a $3,000 fine. No terrorist links were

associated with the individuals who obtained tourist visas in this manner.

Charging Customers for Federally Funded Work — Criminal! The Facts: An Acting Assistant Director for the San Francisco Immigration and

Naturalization Service (INS) office charged one alien $950 for a file review (for which

the INS does not charge), asked another alien for $300 for an unneeded INS pardon, and

charged a third $250 to get a citizen application waiver that had already been approved.

The Director was sentenced to serve six months in a halfway house, to be followed by six

147

months of home detention and four years of probation, during which time he would be

prohibited from acting in any capacity on immigration matters without permission of his

probation officer. (Source: Federal Ethics Report, Feb. 2003.)

The Law: 18 U.S.C. § 209 (2003) makes it criminal for an employee of the

Federal executive branch or of an independent agency of the United States from receiving

any compensation for official services. For violations of this law, 18 U.S.C. § 216 (2003)

authorizes fines and prison terms for up to one year—unless the conduct is willful, in

which case imprisonment could be for as much as 5 years.

Navy Employee Commits Section 209 Violation A U.S. District Court recently sentenced a GS-14 Navy employee to one year of

probation and fined him $5000 for receiving an illegal contribution to his salary in

violation of 18 U.S.C. 209. In addition to criminal penalties, the employee was

suspended without pay for twenty days. The employee was the director of a unit that

marketed contracts to other activities and then issued delivery orders to the contractors.

While performing these duties, the employee asked a contractor for, and subsequently

received, a Coach leather writing portfolio and briefcase and a laptop computer. The

investigation started when a contractor employee, who saw the fax that the employee had

sent to the contractor requesting the items, notified the Naval Criminal Investigative

Service.

Employees may not solicit or accept compensation, including goods or services,

from any non-Government source for performing their Government duties. Even though

the goods or services may not have affected how the employees perform their work or

make decisions, such as whether to award a contract, it is a violation to solicit or accept

such compensation.

Senior Official Pays $24,900 Settlement to Department of Justice To settle charges that he violated 18 U.S.C. 209 by accepting fees for speeches

made as part of his official duties, a senior official of the National Science Foundation

agreed to pay $24,900 to the Department of Justice in return for dropping criminal

charges. The senior official had delivered four speeches to universities as part of his

official duties, yet accepted honoraria amounting to $5,500 for those speeches.

148

Since those speeches were part of the official’s duties, acceptance of

compensation constituted supplementation of his salary from non-Federal sources, which

is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 209. Federal employees may accept honoraria for activities

conducted in their personal capacities, but not as part of their official duties.

Furthermore, although honoraria are permitted when speaking in the employee's personal

capacity, employees may not accept compensation for speaking, teaching, or writing on

matters that are directly related to their official duties.

District of Columbia Employee Pleads Guilty to Section 209 Violation Several inspectors employed by the District of Columbia Department of

Consumer and Regulatory Affairs were accepting bribes and gratuities in exchange for

the issuance of construction, plumbing, and electrical permits. In one instance, a private

architect paid "tips" to one of these inspectors in exchange for speedy and favorable

inspections on his renovation projects. The architect was allowed to plead guilty to a

misdemeanor count of section 209, and was sentenced to one year of probation and a

$1,000 fine. The inspectors were convicted on charges of violating 18 U.S.C. 201

(bribery).

18 U.S.C. 209 bars the unlawful supplementation of salary and applies to officers

and employees of the District of Columbia and non-Government sources who

compensate any such officers and employees for their Government services.

District of Columbia DMV Employee Pleads Guilty to Section 209

Charge An employee of the District of Columbia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)

was caught accepting bribes in exchange for altering DMV computer records in order to

"clean up" the driving records of individuals who had outstanding traffic tickets or past

violations that might prevent them from obtaining a driver's license. These bribe

transactions were arranged through a middleman. The DMV employee and the

middleman were convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 209; the DMV employee was

sentenced to two years probation and a $200 fine, and the middleman was sentenced to

one-year probation and a $250 fine. Two citizens who paid the parties to get their

records “cleaned up” were convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 201 (bribery). 18 U.S.C. 209

149

bars the unlawful supplementation of salary and applies to Federal officers and

employees as well as those of the District of Columbia and non-Government sources who

compensate any such officers and employees for their Government services.

Private Citizen Attempts to Bribe Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

Employee The citizen tried to bribe the IRS employee by paying him $250 for favorable

treatment regarding an IRS matter. The citizen pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of

18 U.S.C. 209, which prohibits the payment of supplementation to a Government

employee's salary.

Civilian Employee at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia Violates

18 U.S.C. 209 An Air Force employee was designated by his Agency as the supervisory

construction representative for the Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering

Requirements (SABER) contract. Under this contract, a private company agreed to

provide base engineering and construction services at Langley Air Force Base. The

prime contractor subcontracted its electrical work to another company. A supervisor with

the subcontractor subsequently provided the Air Force employee with an air conditioning

system, a Jet Ski and trailer, a home computer system, and a laptop computer, with a total

value of approximately $16,500.

The Air Force employee pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of 18 U.S.C. 209,

for receiving a supplementation to his salary as compensation for his services as a

Government employee. He was sentenced to three years probation and a $2500 fine.

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Employee Drives Overseas Auto

Scheme As a U.S. Federal employee residing in Egypt, the employee discovered that he

could purchase an imported vehicle in Egypt without having to pay the normal 150%

excise tax. This fact had created a black market in which Egyptian car brokers would pay

U.S. employees to register luxury cars in their names in order to allow the dealers to

evade import taxes. Investigators found that while in Cairo, Egypt, the employee had

150

agreed to accept $25,000 in exchange for changing the status of his personally-owned

vehicle with the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which would allow him to

participate in the scheme.

The CIA employee was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 209 and was sentenced

to six months' supervised release, six months' home detention, and 200 hours of

community service.

(Source: OGE 1998 Conflict of Interest Prosecution Survey)

Family Business Venture Ends in Violation of 18 U.S.C. 209 A contracting officer at the Naval Surface Warfare Center started a computer

equipment business with his father-in-law to provide extra income. The duo concocted a

scheme whereby the contracting officer steered Government contracts for the purchase of

computer equipment to the father-in-law, who would buy the equipment from a third

party vendor through a computer supply magazine. The two would then overcharge the

Government and split the profit. This netted a payment of $29,000 for $11,000 worth of

computer equipment. Both parties split the $18,000 overcharge.

The father-in-law pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of 18 U.S.C. 209, which

prohibits the supplementation of a Government employee's salary, and the contracting

officer pled guilty to wire fraud and mail fraud. In their pre-indictment plea agreements,

the father-in-law agreed to pay $18,000 restitution, and the contracting officer agreed to

pay an amount of restitution to be determined at the sentencing hearing.

Cab Company Owner and District of Columbia Official Conspire to

Violate 18 U.S.C. 209 Suspicious investigators discovered that for three years, a cab company owner had

conspired with the Chief of the D.C. Office of Taxicabs to provide illegal taxicab driver’s

licenses to unqualified drivers. The drivers paid money to the company owner, who took

the money and the drivers' names to the D.C. official; the D.C. official then prepared the

illegal licenses. The company owner also paid the D.C. official money for other illegal

favors, such as registering vehicles that should not have been registered.

The D.C. official pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 209, which prohibits the

supplementation of a Government employee’s salary, and agreed to testify against the cab

151

company owner. The D.C. official was also convicted of nine felony counts, including

accepting bribes and gratuities in violation of 18 U.S.C. 201.

Air Force Contracting Officer Pays $6000 for 18 U.S.C. 209 Violation In return for favorable treatment in contracting, employees of a private company

agreed to provide an Air Force contracting officer with money in the form of

condominium rental payments. That money was paid through different intermediaries in

order to disguise the purpose and the source of the funds. In addition, an investigation

disclosed that the company purchased certain valuable goods and items for the

condominium. Finally, the investigation disclosed that the company purchased smaller

value items, such as dinners and basketball tickets, for the Air Force contracting officer.

Due to statute of limitations problems, the investigation focused on the payment of the

smaller value items.

The contracting officer pled guilty to a single misdemeanor count of 18 U.S.C.

209, unlawfully augmenting his salary while employed by the Air Force. He was ordered

to pay a fine of $6,000, which the Court calculated to be three times the value of those

accepted items.

Payoff for Special Access at Government Auction Ends in $1000 Fine In an attempt to gain preferential treatment at a Government auction, two brothers

paid off an auction guard. Instead, they wound up purchasing misdemeanor violations of

18 U.S.C. 209 (supplementation of a Government employee's salary). Sentences of

probation and a $1,000 fine were imposed on each.

Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in Tucson Illegally Possesses

Sheep Skull and Horns The Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) prosecuted an individual for illegally killing

a bighorn sheep on an Indian Reservation. As a result of the prosecution, the hunter

forfeited the bighorn sheep and trophy (skull and horns), valued at approximately $5,000,

to the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Pursuant to a request from the AUSA, the

Arizona Game and Fish Department entered into an agreement with the AUSA allowing

him to publicly display the skull and horns in his office, but requiring their return upon

152

request. However, after leaving employment with the U.S. Attorney’s office, the AUSA

took the skull and horns with him and treated them as his personal property. When the

former AUSA was questioned a year later about his possession of the skull and horns, he

claimed that an unspecified Indian had sent the skull and horns to him in appreciation for

his work on the prosecution of the hunter. Investigation showed that such a gift would

have been contrary to tribal practices and no member of the tribe could be found who

knew anything about the alleged gift.

The Government then regained possession of the skull and horns from the former

AUSA and returned them to the tribe. The AUSA agreed to plead guilty to violating 18

U.S.C. 209 for his possession of the trophy.

Secretary at Federal Prison Pleads Guilty to 18 U.S.C. 209 Violation Investigators discovered that the secretary at a Federal prison had accepted money

from an inmate in exchange for allowing him certain privileges, including allowing him

to place unauthorized calls on her office phone. The defendant pled guilty to the charge

of receiving compensation from a non-Government source for doing her Government job

(18 U.S.C. 209(a)) and was sentenced to two years probation.

Postal Service Employee Convicted of 18 U.S.C. 209 Violation Investigators discovered that an assistance counselor with the Postal Service was

taking kickbacks from a nearby hospital. The counselor provided assessment, referral,

and follow-up counseling services to Postal Service employees and their families relating

to chemical dependency or behavioral problems. While performing these duties, the

counselor received cash, a telephone credit card, limousine services, food, hotel

accommodations, and travel reimbursement for himself, his wife and his brother from a

Topeka, Kansas hospital. These benefits had an aggregate value of in excess of $45,000.

The hospital was a psychiatric care and drug-alcohol dependency treatment facility.

The counselor was charged with fifteen counts of violating 18 U.S.C. 209, for

accepting dual compensation, and pled guilty.

153

GSA Employee Convicted of Violating 18 U.S.C. 209 As the Comptroller of the General Services Administration (GSA), the employee

in question was responsible for implementing and overseeing GSA's contract with Diners

Club for Government charge cards. During the life of the contract, the employee

accepted numerous expensive meals from Diners Club employees in Washington, D.C.,

as well as accommodations, meals, and entertainment in Las Vegas and Phoenix.

The employee pled guilty to one count of conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 371) and one

count of receiving dual compensation (18 U.S.C. 209), both misdemeanors. He was

sentenced to one year of supervised probation and a $250 fine.

Citizen Pleads Guilty to Violating 18 U.S.C. 209 A private electrical contractor was charged with supplementing the salary of a

Public Affairs Officer who was a representative for small and disadvantaged businesses

for the Army Corps of Engineers. The contractor was involved in the payment of money

to the officer in return for the officer’s assistance in facilitating the sale and development

of land for off-post housing around Fort Drum, New York.

The contractor pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 209, supplementing the salary of

a Federal employee, and was sentenced to one year of probation.

Public Works Employee “Gets the Boot” for Accepting Payments An employee of the Vehicle Immobilization Branch at the D.C. Department of

Public Works who decided to supplement his salary with private funds quickly found

himself with no salary at all. The employee solicited and accepted $400 in cash for

removing a lawfully-attached boot on a D.C. vehicle. In return, the employee received

three years probation, six months home detention, 100 hours community service, and

$300 in fines for his violation of 18 U.S.C. 209, illegal supplementation of salary.

Easy Come, Easy Go Investigators discovered that an Immigration and Naturalization Service

Adjudication Officer had taken bribes from an immigration consultant to facilitate the

consultant’s cases. The officer pled guilty to three misdemeanor counts of violating 18

154

U.S.C. § 209(a), receiving compensation from a private party for services rendered to the

United States.

Accepting Bribes for Priority Service Earns $10,000 Fine A Veterans Affairs rating assistant technician responsible for prepping claims

files for adjudication was found to have taken bribes from filers to green-light false and

inflated disability claims for review. He pled guilty to one felony count of violating 18

U.S.C. § 209 (a), unlawfully accepting supplementation of government salary, and was

slapped with four years probation, $10,000 in fines, and 120 hours of community service.

Gifts from Vendor Result in Two Years Probation An employee of the Department of the Interior’s Office of the Geological Survey

took advantage of her government charge card responsibilities and started accepting gift

cards from a certain vendor in return for steering her purchases his way. Her $500 in gift

cards cost her two years of probation and 100 hours of community service when she pled

guilty to one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 209, unlawfully accepting supplementation of

her government salary.

Time and Attendance Violations

Secret Agent Man? A former high-level official at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stole

nearly $900,000 from the Government by pretending to be part of a detail to the Central

Intelligence Agency (CIA) for nearly two decades. He duped a series of supervisors,

including top officials, by disappearing from the office and explaining his absences by

telling his bosses that he was doing top-secret work for the CIA and its “directorate of

operations.” No one at EPA ever checked to see if he worked for the CIA. In all, he was

paid for 2.5 years of work that he did not perform and received about $500,000 in

“retention bonuses” that he did not deserve. Additionally, he lied about contracting

malaria, which cost the EPA $8,000 over three years for a parking space reserved for the

155

disabled. He was reimbursed for $57,000 in fraudulent travel expenses, and he continued

to draw a paycheck for 19 months after his retirement. He has repaid the nearly $900,000

to the EPA, but still owes $507,000 in a money judgment. He was sentenced to 32

months in prison.

A Few Unexcused Absences An employee of a military service was not particularly careful about his time

reporting. The employee arrived late, left early, and left the building for extended

periods of undocumented time. Of 289 workdays reviewed during an investigation, the

employee was found to have worked less than the required 8.5 hours on 135 occasions

(47% of the time); all told, the employee misstated his work hours by over 100 hours.

For his unscrupulous timekeeping, the employee received a letter of reprimand

and was charged leave to accurately reflect his attendance.

In a similar case, an employee of a DoD facility was issued a letter of warning

and instruction after she arrived late on several days but left at the scheduled shift

completion time without claiming leave or reporting her tardiness to management.

The letter instructed the employee to sign-in and sign-out. Notwithstanding the

letter, it was later determined that the employee continued to fail to fulfill her time

commitments, leaving over an hour early on multiple occasions.

The employee was issued a letter of reprimand for leaving the worksite without

permission.

DVD Bootleggers MIA During Government Work Hours A Federal employee used his Government computer to make illegal copies of

commercial DVDs in violation of copyright laws. He and another employee also used

their Government computers and duty time to watch the movies. The other employee

took lunches lasting up to three hours in order to watch the DVDs and take naps. Initially

the employees’ supervisors signed off on this behavior, even assigning extra work to

others to make up for the employees’ time wasted napping and movie watching. The

employee who copied the DVDs received a written reprimand. The supervisor received

an oral admonishment for failing to address the misconduct, and another employee

received a Letter of Counseling for knowingly accepting a pirated DVD. In a similar

156

case, a civilian employee working for the U.S. Army in Germany was involved in selling

pirated DVDs. He used the profits from his illegal operation to buy vacation homes and

luxury cars and to pay for frequent European ski vacations. He devoted some of his duty

time to the marketing and selling of the bootleg videos, including taking payments while

on the job. Even though the employee had left Federal service by the time the

accusations against him were substantiated, administrative action was taken to bar him

from US Army Europe installations.

Out-of-Office Reply: Out Sick: Can be Reached at Bowling Alley A GS-14 Director, within an Army Command, failed to show up to work for at

least three months. He complained of needing a double hip replacement but never

submitted sick leave. Though he claimed to work from home, he was never approved for

a work-at-home program. People reported seeing him around the community and he was

spotted at the PX, the Commissary, and even the bowling alley! The man received a

verbal reprimand and was counseled on appropriate leave request and approval

procedures.

Falsification of Time Cards Results in Removal An employee at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center had a habit of showing up

for work only one week a month. However, her supervisor soon noticed that the

employee’s paycheck did not reflect this erratic schedule. Upon questioning, the

employee admitted to changing the pay codes on her time card after they were signed by

her supervisor.

The employee was allowed to resign, and is indebted to the Government for

$10,383.47. The money will be deducted from her retirement pay.

Pre-signing Employee’s Time Card Results in Counseling An Air Force Sergeant at the Field Maintenance center pre-signed one of her

subordinate’s time cards before she left for a two-week leave. Unfortunately for her, the

subordinate subsequently changed several of the boxes she had originally marked as

“leave” to “regular flex time,” and then took leave while still drawing regular pay. When

investigators discovered the discrepancy, the subordinate resigned. The trusting Sergeant

157

earned counseling for failing to comply with DoD Financial Management Regulations,

which stipulate that supervisors must correctly certify time cards at the end of the pay

period in order to prevent employee fraud.

Lying About Overtime Doesn’t Pay! The Facts: A former employee of the Department of Defense entered overtime

hours he hadn’t worked into a computer time-keeping system. He was caught. He

pleaded guilty and was ordered to pay the Government $7,500 and was sentenced to three

years probation — not the sort of overtime he was looking for. (Source: Federal Ethics

Report, Apr. 2003.)

The Law: 18 U.S.C. § 287 (2003) states that anyone presenting to any “person or

officer in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, or to any department or

agency thereof” a claim for money from the Federal Government, knowing such claim to

be false, shall be fined and imprisoned for no more than 5 years.

Hung By Wire Fraud The Facts: A Defense Intelligence Agency secretary in Arlington, Virginia,

improperly obtained access to her time and attendance records on 74 occasions. She used

her access to credit herself with over 4,000 hours of overtime she hadn’t worked. She

was caught and pleaded guilty to wire fraud, for which she was sentenced to twelve

months and one day in prison, to be followed by three years of probation with

participation in Gamblers Anonymous. She also had to pay the Government $91,380 in

restitution. Hopefully, she learned from this bad bet. (Source: Federal Ethics Report,

Apr. 2003.)

The Law: 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2003) mandates penalties for transmitting “by

means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any

writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds” in order to execute a plan to defraud. The

penalties: Fines, imprisonment of not more than 20 years, or both — unless the fraud

affects a financial institution, in which case the fine is to be of not more than $1 million

and the imprisonment of not more than 30 years.

158

Falsifying Overtime Can Be a Costly Business The Facts: A Federal employee at the Pentagon decided to participate in a

scheme that involved logging false overtime hours in an electronic timekeeping system.

The employee pled guilty at trial and was sentenced to three years of probation along

with six months of home confinement, and ordered to pay over $16,000 restitution.

(Source: Federal Ethics Report, March 2003.)

The Law: 18 U.S.C. § 287 (2003) mandates fines and imprisonment for up to 5

years for anyone who presents a claim for money, which the person knows to be

fraudulent, to the “civil, military, or naval service of the United States.”

Improper Time Sheets Allegations were made that a Department of Defense (DoD) employee was not

working his assigned hours and was fraudulently claiming overtime hours he did not

work. After an investigation, it was determined that the employee was attending college

courses at lunch for approximately two hours and worked late to make up the time. His

time and attendance sheets showed him working his normal hours with no indication of

the long lunch and late hours to accommodate his college courses. The sheets were

submitted without showing the modified schedule because a clerk incorrectly told the

employee’s supervisor that “the system wouldn’t allow variations from a normal

workday.” The employee, the supervisor, and the clerk were all instructed on proper

timekeeping procedures.

INS Grants Administrative Leave as Award for Contributions to CFC Officials in an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) district office

rewarded employees who contributed at least $500 to the Combined Federal Campaign

(CFC) with eight hours of administrative leave. After an investigation, it was found that

the employees who were granted and used the leave did not have the leave properly

documented on their time sheets. As the district director did not carry out the violations

in a knowing and willful way and because the employees affected stated they did not feel

coerced, no charges were filed. The director did receive a letter of counseling regarding

her management of the CFC program, however.

159

VA Physician Time and Attendance Issue An administrative investigation substantiated that a part-time Department of

Veterans Affairs (VA) physician routinely worked at a non-VA clinic during his VA core

hours and as a result failed to meet his VA tour of duty obligation. The investigation also

revealed that the physician’s supervisor failed to check on him to ensure that he was

working the hours required. In response to the investigator’s recommendation,

administrative action was taken against both the physician and the supervisor.

The physician was charged leave for the hours not worked and was instructed to revise

his hours at the non-VA clinic.

Employees Terminated for Abusing Religious Leave For a period of several years, two top executives at the Naval Undersea Warfare

Center had an astonishing work record—they took nearly no vacation time at all. The

reason, investigators soon discovered, was that the executives had been taking “religious

compensatory time” instead. Curiously, the executives’ absences seldom fell on any

traditionally-observed religious holidays. Instead, investigators found that the pair’s so-

called religious observances took place on days when they had medical appointments,

sightseeing trips, and golf tournaments. Asked whether golf tournaments could be

considered religious observances, one executive replied, “They could be for some

people.”

Unamused, the Inspector General found that the two had made a “premeditated,

conspiratorial effort to defraud the Government,” and forced them into retirement.

Religious compensatory time is available for government employees who need to observe

religious requirements – but even then, it needs to be made up at a later time.

(Source: www.GovExec.com, July 1, 2004)

Use of Sick Leave for Military Tours Earns Employee Dismissal A reservist’s use of sick leave to account for absences on active-duty military

tours resulted in the end of a 20-year federal career. Over a period of several years, the

reservist accounted for absences from his civilian position at CENTCOM as “sick leave,”

when in fact he was on active-duty military tours. This allowed the employee to bank

annual leave, as well as collect dual salaries from both the civil service and the military.

160

Given the reservist’s two decades of federal employment, the judge found the reservist’s

pleas of ignorance as to the proper leave procedures unconvincing. The judge also took

into consideration the testimony of the reservist’s commanding officer at CENTCOM,

who testified that his trust in the reservist had been wholly eroded.

As a consequence of the reservist’s abuse of the leave system, his career in the

civil service was terminated.

(Source: 2005 MSRP LEXIS 6041)

Employee Disciplined for Double Counting Civilian and Military

Reserve Duties A senior agency attorney did a little “double duty,” and as a “reward,” he was

ordered to reimburse the agency for 500.5 hours of annual leave and 18 hours of sick

leave. The agency report found the lawyer spent the equivalent of about 83 days

performing his Military Reserve duties. While his dual service is admirable, by not

charging military or annual leave for some absences, the officer’s civilian leave balance

exceeded that to which he was entitled. Section 2635.705 of Title 5 of the Code of

Federal Regulations states an employee shall use official time in an honest effort to

perform official duties. While his civilian leave balance was not reduced while the

attorney was performing his official military duties, he received credit as if he was

performing his civilian duties at the same time. Further, the agency found the attorney

had misused his subordinates’ time, using them to schedule personal activities such as

haircuts, travel, and golf.

Although the final determination found no dishonesty, lack of integrity, or motive

for personal gain on the attorney’s part, neither the agency nor the Military Reserve

found the attorney’s actions acceptable. The attorney was admonished for failure to

exercise reasonable care in monitoring his leave balances, and also counseled for

misusing subordinates to perform personal tasks. In addition, the Military Reserve

Branch counseled him “severely” for his negligence in monitoring his leave account and

for improper staff use. Working for two military branches is legal, but it requires careful

accounting for your time, including leave.

(Source: Military Service Inspector General)

161

Director Abused Leave and Personnel, Get’s Demoted and Loses Job The Director of a military staff office caught the eye of the Inspector General by

abusing time, attendance, and official travel regulations, and by displaying abusive

personal behavior towards her staff.

The Director failed to use proper leave or to document authorized absences

involving several trips. She also discouraged attempts by her subordinates to verify her

whereabouts, often using profane language and threatening verbal outbursts. In addition,

the Inspector General discovered the Director had covered the documents that detailed

her use of leave with cross outs, changes and other ink annotations, making them

virtually incomprehensible. As a result, the service secretary took action that resulted in

her being removed from the Senior Executive Services and demoted in grade to GS-15.

As part of a negotiated settlement, the Director agreed to retire from Federal service as

soon as she was eligible.

(Source: Military Service Inspector General)

Travel Violations

Bermuda, Jamaica, Oh I Want to Take You A certain military general had a fancy for lavish vacations. He decided to take

numerous personal trips including one to Bermuda using a military airplane. Once his

vacation regimen was discovered, the general was required to reimburse the government

for $82,000. In addition, he was demoted upon retirement.

A Private Jet? Don’t Mind if I Do … An O-9 with over 35 years of service in the U.S. military was scheduled for a

command visit to a base. His original C-12 flight was delayed, so his staff spontaneously

arranged a substitute flight for him: a C-5 that had been previously unscheduled to fly.

Despite his many years of experience and his stated commitment to confronting travel

abuse issues within his command, he and three members of his staff boarded a near-

empty jet to make the command visit on time. The government incurred $38,000 in

additional costs for the special flight. The officer was counseled by his command about

the violation.

162

Fasten Your Seatbelts. We’re in for a Career-Ending Ride A Service Colonel was found guilty of larceny and submitting false statements

after he used government funds to purchase round trip airline tickets from Kuwait to the

States to attend his son’s graduation. The Colonel also submitted a false travel

authorization listing a fictitious reason for the travel. The Colonel voluntarily repaid the

funds and retired early.

False Travel Expenses A service member filed a travel voucher for falsely claimed expenses for driving

from Virginia to California to relocate for a new assignment, and she received pay for 10

days of per diem. The inquiry found that the service member received a ride to Illinois

from a friend and then flew to California. She was made to repay the difference in

reimbursements and received a letter of reprimand.

German Holiday Two employees of a DoD Agency obtained overpayment for official travel to

Germany. The two employees - whom we will call by the pseudonyms John and Sarah -

claimed hotel lodging reimbursement for a night in which they were on a plane flying to

Germany.

In addition, the two took a “rest day” before the conference on which no mission

duties were performed and no leave was taken. (They indicated that this was in order to

overcome jet lag before the conference.). Their misconduct continued after the

conference. The two remained in Germany for a day in order to tour various tourist sites

in Germany on the Government’s dime, traveling approximately 500 miles in a

Government rental car and requesting reimbursement for the fuel costs associated with

their personal activity, as well as lodging and per diem expenses.

Sarah later outdid John by claiming hotel costs for the night after she returned to

the US and during which she was in her own home.

John and Sarah had over $650 and over $1100 respectively withheld from their

pay. The two were also required to receive refresher training on the use of the Defense

Travel System. John, the approving official for the travel vouchers for Sarah’s trip, was

also found to have failed to exercise due diligence as a Certifying Official.

163

In the background of the case was a romantic relationship between John and

Sarah. Though the two denied having a romantic relationship during their trip, they

admitted to beginning a relationship 8 months later – and that continued. As a result of

the ongoing relationship, John was required to recuse himself from all actions involving

Sarah, including signing as the approving official for any actions that could be to the

benefit or detriment of Sarah.

Abuse of Official Travel and Leave Garners One Year Probation The former Deputy Under-Secretary in the Department of Education wound up in

Federal court after investigators uncovered discrepancies regarding his travel, leave, and

financial disclosure. Investigators discovered that the official, who was also employed as

a traveling judge in the State of Texas, had made at least fourteen trips on Government

expense when the purpose of his travel was at least partly to accrue time toward a Texas

state pension. On several of these trips, the official had additionally requested and

received Federal sick leave; further, he had collected reimbursement from the

Government for some of his personal expenses. Finally, the official had failed to report

his salary from the State of Texas on his Government financial disclosure form.

The official pled guilty to the conflict of interest statute. He was sentenced to

one year of probation, 100 hours of community service, and a $5,000 fine. He

additionally reimbursed the Government $8,659.85 for his fraudulent claims.

Military Officer Dances While the Public Pays The Facts: According to a military service Inspector General inquiry, a senior

military officer planned to attend two balls taking place within roughly an hour’s drive of

his station. For these, he obtained official orders and, according to his travel claims,

received payment for hotel lodging, meals, and incidental expenses (per diem) —

amounting all told to around $500. This conduct occurred as one of a series of offenses

that resulted in the officer being relieved of command, issued a punitive letter of

reprimand, and ordered to forfeit $1,000.

The Law: The Department of Defense (DoD) Travel Regulations provide various

guidelines for travel of uniformed (in Volume 1) and civilian (in Volume 2) DoD

employees. Applicable to this case was Volume 1: “Joint Federal Travel Regulations”

164

(JFTR). JFTR section U2010 requires a uniformed service member to use the same care

in incurring expenses when the Federal Government is to pay “as would a prudent person

traveling at personal expense . . . Excess costs, circuitous routes, delays or luxury

accommodations that are unnecessary or unjustified are the member’s financial

responsibility.” Moreover, JFTR section U4102 forbids a uniformed service member

from obtaining per diem for any temporary duty (TDY) performed within twelve hours.

Since attendance at each ball along with round-trip travel could have been completed

within twelve hours had the officer exercised prudence, this regulation made it even

clearer that the officer should not have obtained his per diem. Since other agencies have

travel regulations, all Federal employees are encouraged to verify the propriety of having

the Government pay for their travel expenses.

Bumped Well It was the young employee's first official trip to Washington, DC. It was just a

one-day, round trip. Her meeting was scheduled for 1:00 PM. Anxious to make a good

impression (and to look around DC), she booked an early-morning flight out of Atlanta.

When she got to the airport, she discovered that the flight was overbooked, and the airline

was offering free, round-trip tickets to anyone who would volunteer to take the next

flight. That flight was to arrive in DC at 12:20 PM, and she figured that she would still

have time to make her meeting. As her plane reached Richmond, the pilot announced

that would be a slight delay while Air Force One took off. Her plane circled and circled.

The delay lasted for over an hour, and by the time the plane finally landed, she had

missed the meeting.

FBI Undercover Parties According to an FBI report, upon the retirement of a senior FBI official, FBI

personnel from around the country journeyed to Washington to attend the official’s

retirement party. Many out-of-town G-men traveled on official orders and public

expense. According to their travel orders, the purpose of the trip was to attend an ethics

conference! According to the news report, only five people actually attended the ethics

forum.

165

FBI False Travel Claim A former supervisory special agent of the FBI was sentenced in U.S. District

Court for falsely claiming travel expenses to which he was not entitled. The former agent

pled guilty to one count of theft of Government property. The former agent had ended a

period of travel five days earlier than his schedule (and later travel claim) stated. He was

ordered to pay $1,887 in restitution.

Official Travel to Conference Turns into Florida Vacation A Department of Defense (DoD) official was to travel to and attend a conference

in Florida while on DoD travel orders. His wife accompanied him. It was alleged that

after checking in at the hotel where the conference was to be held and then renting a

convertible, the official promptly left for a short vacation with his wife for all three days

of the conference. After an investigation it was determined that the official did not attend

the conference, told a subordinate to “cover for him,” and filed a fraudulent travel claim

with DoD for the three days of the conference he did not attend. A proposal was made to

have the official separated from Federal service.

False Travel Claim Filed I Allegations were made against a Navy enlisted man regarding filing a false travel

claim. After an investigation it was determined the individual had claimed his two

children accompanied him during his PCS move across the country when in fact the

children were in the custody of his ex-wife. He was reduced in rank one grade and

ordered to forfeit $2140.00 in pay.

False Travel Claim Filed II It was determined after an investigation that a Department of Defense (DoD)

official filed a false claim for travel expenses. The official claimed he was staying at a

hotel, and as a result, was paid the appropriate per diem rate by the Navy. It was

determined during the course of the investigation that the official had actually been on

board a Navy ship (a situation where a much reduced per diem is paid) during the time he

claimed he was staying at the hotel. The official reimbursed the Navy, was issued a letter

of caution, and was counseled by his supervisor.

166

False Travel Claim Filed III A former Department of Defense (DoD) employee was sentenced in U.S. District

Court for making false relocation claims to the Government. The former employee made

over $15,000 in false relocation claims in connection with a permanent change of station

(PCS) move. The judge sentenced the former employee to two years probation and

ordered her to pay more than $15,000 in restitution.

False Travel Claim Filed IV An Army employee was sentenced in U.S. District Court for falsifying lodging

expenses. She pled guilty to one count of theft of Government property. The employee

had traveled to a nearby facility and incurred no lodging expenses. However, she had

filed a claim for $105 when she returned back to her duty station. The employee was

sentenced to one year of probation and was ordered to pay a $3,000 fine. Ironically, the

employee was the director of the Honesty, Ethics, Accountability, Respect, Trust, and

Support (HEARTS) Program for her duty station at the time she committed the violation.

Senior Officer, Who Abused Travel and Misused Staff, Disciplined A senior military officer and his wife accrued improper airfare expenses by flying

in premium class on official business trips. On one trip, for example, the officer justified

business-class seats by indicating he was required to perform official business

immediately after his arrival at his travel destination, when in fact he spent almost his

first full day attending a VIP welcome, making U.S. embassy calls, enjoying lunch and

dinner, and touring a local vineyard. The officer explained that he chose to fly business-

class on another trip because flying coach would have looked “strange” to his hosts.

On other trips, the officer made unofficial, unscheduled stops for family reasons, such as

attending his children’s sporting events, without taking leave.

Federal travel regulations limit official travel to coach-class unless special

circumstances, such as special security requirements, medical requirements, or

unavailability of coach-class seats, exist. The rank of the traveler does not justify

premium class travel.

The officer also violated 5 C.F.R. 2635.705(b), which mandates a Government

employee “shall not encourage, direct, coerce, or request a subordinate to use official

167

time to perform activities other than those required in the performance of official duties

or authorized in accordance with law or regulation.” Although never issuing any direct

orders, the officer requested his subordinates to perform many personal services such as

caring for his dog, shopping for athletic gear, and repairing his bicycle. Subordinates

reported they had given tours around the local area to the officer’s friends and relatives

and rescued the officer’s wife on the roadside one Sunday. The officer’s other violations

included asking his subordinates to make thousands of dollars in payments out of their

personal funds for various purchases for him. Even though he reimbursed them later, it

is improper to solicit loans from subordinates.

The officer received a Punitive Letter of Reprimand at non-judicial punishment

proceedings. He voluntarily reimbursed the Government $14,461.03 for travel benefits

he and his wife received and charged 15 days to leave to account for days of TAD travel

that were for personal business. Further audit of his travel claims resulted in collecting

another $1,317. In addition, he was reduced in grade upon retirement from active duty.

(Source: Military Service Inspector General)

False Travel Claim Filed V A former Department of Defense (DoD) employee was sentenced in U.S. District

Court for submitting false travel claims in relation to a permanent change of station

(PCS) move. The former employee was charged with claiming over $22,000 in false

travel expenses. She was also charged with altering documents to substantiate the

expenses. The judge sentenced her to five years probation and ordered her to pay

$10,456 in restitution.

Government Employee Liable for Accident Incurred on Personal

Business A NASA employee on official business arranged to have his return date extended

so that he could remain in the area for personal reasons. During his extended stay, he

retained his Government-leased rental vehicle. While on his way to the airport to return

home, the employee was involved in a car accident when an elk ran into his vehicle. The

employee reimbursed the rental car company for more than $2500 in repair costs, and

168

then submitted a reimbursement request to NASA. NASA refused payment as the

employee was not on official business at the time of the accident.

The Federal Travel Regulation mandates that an agency may pay only those

expenses essential to the transaction of official business. Specifically, employees may be

reimbursed for deductibles paid to rental car companies only if the damage occurs while

the employee is performing official business. After the NASA employee’s temporary

duty ended, the rental car became both his expense and his responsibility.